SNAME Jack Up Site Assessment Recommended Practices PDF

T echnical
&
R esearch Bulletin 5-5A
Guidelines for
Site Specific
Assessment of
Mobile Jack-Up Units
This Bulletin contains two documents relating to the site-specific assessment of

mobile jack-up units. These documents have been produced by a joint industry-fund-
ed project (JIP). They have been published by SNAME for the benefit of naval archi-
tects and marine engineers involved with the world-wide assessment of mobile jack-
up units.
nThe first document is T&R 5-5 and is referred to as a "Guideline". This document
describes a general approach to site assessment which should be applied.
The second document is T&R 5-5A and is referred to as a "Recommended Practice".

This is the title selected by the JIP participants. However, T&R 5-5A must not be
construed as a recommended practice proposed by SNAME. T&R 5-5A describes
one example of a methodology that can be followed to achieve the intent of the
"Guideline".
The Society of Naval Architects

and Marine Engineers
601 Pavonia Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey 07306
THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS
TECHNICAL AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
Technical & Research Bulletin S-SA
This volume contains the following documents:
• T&R 5-5 - Guideline For Site Specific Assessment Of Mobile Jack-Up Units - (First
Edition - May 1994)
• T&R 5-5A - Recommended Practice For Site Specific Assessment Of Mobile Jack-
Up Units - (First Edition - Rev 2, January 2002)
• Commentaries To Recommended Practice For Site Specific Assessment Of Mobile
Jack-Up Units - (First Edition - Rev 2, January 2002)
• Example ("Go-By") Calculation Using Recommended Practice For Site Specific
Assessment Of Mobile Jack-Up Units - (Preliminary Issue - May 1994)
January 2002
GUIDELINE
FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT
OF MOBILE JACK-UP UNITS
FIRST EDITION - MAY 1994

Preparation of this Bulletin has been monitored by
PANELOC-7
(SITE ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UP RIGS)
OF
THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCIDTECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS

TECHNICAL AND RESEARCH PRORAM
~L~T.BENNETT,C~
Reviewed and Approved

by
OFFSHORE COMMITTEE
William P. Stewart, Chairman
William T. Bennett Peter G. Noble

Jeremiah Daniel John A. Pritzlaff
David B. Lorenz William 1. Sember
JackY. K Lou N. Pharr Smith
James M. Magill Y. S. David Tein
Scott C. McClure David P. Tuturea
John A. Mercier
Philip B. Kimball
Executive Director
Guideline for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This GUIDELINE has been drafted by the Working Group of the Joint Industry Sponsored
project "Jack-Up Site Assessment Procedures - Establishment of an International Technical
Guideline". Technical and administrative management has been provided by Noble Denton
Consultancy Services Limited. Funding was provided by the Working Group members and the
other Participants in the study listed below:
The Working Group
Friede & Goldman W.T. Bennett (Chair)

Noble Denton M.J.R. Hoyle (Technical Secretary)
ABS D.E. Jones
Amoco C.F. Cowgill
BP R.O. Snell
Bureau Veritas J.L. Isnard
DnV P .E. Bergrem
Exxon C.R. Brinkman
Lloyds Register W.J. Winkworth
Maersk Drilling G. Kudsk
Marathon Le Tourneau C.A. Wendenburg
MSC c.J. Mommaas
Noble Denton J.C. Trickey/B.P.M. Sharples
Reading & Bates R.W. Mowell
Santa Fe C.N. Springett
Sedco-Forex J. Chevallier
Shell P.G.F. Sliggers
Other Participants
AGIP S.P.A.
ARCO Oil & Gas Co
CFEM
COGLA
Department of Energy (UK)
Elf
Enterprise Oil
Far East Levingston Shipbuilding
IADC (sponsoring members)
Maersk Olie Og Gas
Mobil
Norwegian Maritime Directorate
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
Phillips Petroleum
Statoil
Technip Geoproduction
Texaco
The opinions or assertions of the authors herein are not to be construed as official or
reflecting the views of SNAME or any government agency.
It is understood and agreed that nothing expressed herein is intended or shall be construed
to give any person, firm or corporation any right. Remedy, or claim against SNAME or
any of its officers or members.
© Copyright 1994 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Correspondence should be addressed to:
Robert D. Bowie
Technical Secretary to SNAME OC-7 panel
ABS Americas
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, Texas 77060
Fax: (281) 877-6001

Phone: (281) 877-6580
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Reference Document 1
1.3 Applicability and Limitations 1
1.4 Typical Approach to Site Assessment 2
2 DATA TO BE ASSEMBLED FOR EACH SITE WCA TION
2.1 Rig Data 3

2.2 Site Data 3
2.3 Environmental Data 3
2.4 Geotechnical Data 4
3 CONFIGURATIONS
3.1 Mode of Operation 6

3.2 Airgap 6
3.3 Leg Length Reserve 6
4 WADINGS
4.1 Loading Cases 7

4.2 Wave and Current Forces 8
4.3 Wind Forces 8
4.4 Reaction Point and Foundation Fixity 8
4.5 Storm Approach Angle 9
4.6 Centre of Gravity 9
4.7 Displacement Dependent Loads 9
4.8 Dynamic Effects 9
4.9 Other Loads 10
5 RESISTANCE
5.1 General 11
5.2 Overturning Stability 11
5.3 Foundation and Preload 11
5.4 Structural Integrity 12
5.5 Adjacent Structures 12
5.6 Other 12
GUIDELINE FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSlVIENT

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.1.1 This document is a GUIDELINE for the site specific structural and foundation assessment
of jack-up units. The purpose of this GUIDELINE is to identify the factors which are
likely to be the main concerns for any site assessment of a jack-up unit. It is not to be
interpreted as guidance for design or construction as there are existing rules and
regulations, both by Classification Societies and Governmental Agencies, covering these
aspects.
1.1.2 This GUIDELINE has been developed by representatives of all parts of the jack-up
industry working in a Joint Industry Project. It is intended to serve as a basic standard
and to provide a common reference when comparing the work of different assessors. The
user is advised to take due account of any Regulatory requirements that may apply to the
particular geographic area of operation.
1.2 Reference Document
1.2.1 The accompanying document entitled "RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR SITE

SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF MOBILE JACK-UP UNITS" (hereafter referred to as the
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE) provides further guidance and recommendations on the
procedures and criteria for site specific assessment. It may be revised to account for
technical developments.
1.3 Applicability and limitations
1.3.1 An assessment should be made of the jack-up for each site location. This GUIDELINE
relates only to the assessment of the jack-up in the elevated condition. Transportation to
and from the site and moving on and moving off location are not covered in this
document.
1.3.2 Guidance on the Safety Factors that may be adopted is given in the RECOMMENDED
PRACTICE, however an owner, insurer, operator, etc., may justify different factors in
particular circumstances.
- 1-
1.3.3 This GUIDELINE will apply to most jack-ups. It is recognized that there may be designs
and/or circumstances when certain provisions may not apply. Such instances shall be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
1.3.4 It is assumed that the jack-up is built to recognized standards, and has been maintained as
required to continue to meet those standards. Any deterioration of the jack-up should be
taken into account in the fitness for purpose site specific assessment.
1.4 Typical Approach to Site Assessment
1.4.1 Where a jack-up is to be employed in conditions well within its design capacity and
existing calculations in accordance with the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE are
available, the site specific assessment may be undertaken by appropriate comparisons
between the parameters used in the calculations and those applicable to the new location.
Otherwise, engineering calculations of various degrees of complexity are required to
justify that the jack-up can be safely used at the location.
-2-
2 DATA TO BE ASSEMBlED FOR EACH SUE WCA nON
2.1 Rig Data
2.1.1 The specific rig information that is required to perform a site specific assessment may
include:
Rig type,
Pertinent drawings and specifications,
Weights,
Preloading capability,
Materials,
Design parameters, any proposed deviations for the intended operation, and
Details of any relevant modifications.
2.1.2 When modelling the jack-up structure, it is necessary to consider the

leg/guide/elevating/holding system in some detail. Because of the complexity of
modelling these structures it is often appropriate that the designer's advice is obtained.
Typically, the information required will include upper and lower guide flexibility,
stiffness of the elevating/holding system and any special details regarding its interaction
with the leg.
2.2 Site Data
2.2.1 The site data should include the location coordinates, seabed topography and water depth
referenced to a clearly specified datum (e.g., Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) or Chart
Datum (CD)). Note that charts derived for use by comparatively shallow draft shipping
are often not sufficiently accurate for siting jack-ups.
2.3 Environmental Data
2.3.1 It is of prime importance to obtain appropriate wind, wave and current data for the site
evaluation with due recognition of the quality of the data. Other data are to be evaluated
as applicable e.g., tides, rate of marine growth, ice, sea and air temperature, earthquake,
etc.
-3-
2.3.2 It is recommended that the 50 year return extremes be used for the site specific
assessment of manned jack-ups. In some cases longer return periods may be preferred or
required. In other cases a smaller return period may be justified. For example, if the
jack-up is unmanned or can be demanned readily and the risk of environmental pollution
is considered to be sufficiently low, the use of a 10 year return period storm is
recommended. In such cases the availability and effectiveness of early warning systems
and the adequacy of the evacuation plans should be assessed.
2.3.3 If the jack-up deployment is to be of limited duration, applicable seasonal data may be
used (for example, the 50 year return period summer storm).
2.3.4 Directionality of wind, wave and current may be considered if accurate data is available.
Where there is sufficient evidence that any of the environmental forces at the site are
directional, it may be possible to orientate the jack-up on the most advantageous heading.
2.3.5 The extreme wind, wave and current in some parts of the world (e.g., North Sea) are
specified by the Regulatory Authorities for the geographic area. It should be noted that
these data may not take account of local variations. Improved environmental data are
continually becoming available due to the use of better hindcasting techniques and more
reliable measured data. Consequently, a specific meteorological assessment of the site is
desirable, especially if the jack-up is loaded to near its design limitation.
2.3.6 In some areas of the world there are no adequate data, or there are variations in existing
published data. For such cases there is a need for site specific studies to establish the
meteorological criteria.
2.4 Geotechnical Data
2.4.1 Site specific geotechnical information must be obtained. The type and amount of
geotechnical data required will depend on the particular circumstances such as the type of
jack-up and previous experience of the site, or nearby sites, for which the assessment is
being performed. Such information may include shallow seismic survey, coring data,
cone-penetrometer tests, side-scan sonar, magnetometer survey and diver's survey.
2.4.2 The site should be evaluated for the presence of shallow gas deposits.
- 4-
2.4.3 For sites where previous operations have been performed by jack-ups of the same basic
design, it may be sufficient to identify the location of, and hazards associated with,
existing footprints and refer to previous site data and preloading records; however, it is
recommended that the accuracy of such information be verified.
2.4.4 At sites where there is any uncertainty, corings and/or cone penetrometer tests (CPT) data
are recommended. Alternatively the site may be tied-in to such data at another site by
means of shallow seismic data. If data are not available prior to the arrival of the jack-up
on location at the site, it may be possible to take coring(s), etc. from the jack-up before
preloading and jacking to full airgap. Suitable precautions should be taken to ensure the
safety of the unit during this initial period on location.
2.4.5 The site should be evaluated for potential scour problems. These are most likely to occur
at sites with a firm seabed composed of non-cohesive soils where the penetration will be
minimal.
2.4.6 Certain locations prone to mudslides may involve the acceptance of additional risks.
Such risks should be assessed by carrying out specialist studies of the area on which the
jack-up is to be sited.
-5-
3. CONFIGURA TIONS
3.1 Mode of Opemtion
3.1.1 This GUIDELINE applies to the elevated condition. The jack-up may be used in
alternative modes at one location, for example normal operating or elevated storm mode,
tender mode or cantilever drilling/workover mode. Where more than one mode of
operation is contemplated it may be important in the site assessment to investigate the
differences in these modes (e.g., the varying airgaps required for each) as well as the
operations necessary to change from one mode to another (e.g., skidding the cantilever in
for a storm). The practicality of any required mode change should be evaluated, and
appropriate assumptions incorporated into the site assessment calculations. Any
restrictions on the operations must be included in the operating procedures.
3.2 Airgap
3.2.1 The Airgap is defined as the distance between the underside of the hull and the lowest
astronomical tide (LAT) during operations. It is usually not practical to change the airgap
in preparation for a storm, and therefore the minimum Elevated Storm airgap for an
intended operation should be calculated based upon a suitable return period storm. It is
recommended that this return period should not be less than 50 years, even if a lower
return period is used for other purposes.
3.2.2 The jack-up may be required to operate over a fixed platform or some other obstruction
which may dictate a larger airgap. This larger airgap should be used for the site
assessment.
3.3 Leg Length Resen'e
3.3.1 It is recommended that a reserve above the upper guides of 1.5 meter of leg length or one
jack stoke on hydraulic units is allowed to account for any settlement, and to provide a
contingency in case the actual penetration exceeds that predicted. A larger reserve may
be required due to the strength limitations of the top bay of the leg or leg/hull interface
considerations.
- 6-
4. WADINGS
4.1 Loading Cases
4.1.1 A more detailed discussion of the various loadings that must be considered for site
assessments can be found in the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE. The following outlines
the loadings to be considered in general terms:
1) Environmental Loads
a) Loading due to the extreme storm one (1) minute mean wind on hull and
exposed areas (e.g., legs) as applicable, plus
b) Loading due to extreme wave and current on legs and other submerged
structure, plus
2) Functional Loads
a) Dead loads, plus
b) Applicable live loads, plus
3) Response Effects
a) Displacement dependent loads, plus
b) Dynamic effects.
4) Other Loads
4.1.2 Wind, wave and current are typically considered to act simultaneously and from the same
direction. Directionality of wind, wave and current may be applied when it can be
demonstrated that such directionality persists for the site under consideration.
4.1.3 For dead loads it is typical to consider the jack-up in the fully loaded condition for
structural checks and with the minimum anticipated variable load (often 50%) for the
overturning calculation. If the assessment of the jack-up shows it is marginal in one of
these conditions, consideration may be given to limiting the variable load to a lower or
higher level (depending on the critical parameter), providing the jack-up can be
successfully operated under such restrictions. Any restrictions on the variable loads
should be incorporated in the operating procedures and the rig personnel should be
properly briefed.
-7-
4.2 Wave and Current Forces
4.2.1 Wave and current forces on the legs and appurtenances (e.g., raw water tower) should be
computed using the Morison equation. A wave theory appropriate to the wave height,
period and water depth should be used for the determination of particle kinematics. The
derived loadings are directly affected by the current profile chosen and the method used
to modify the profile in the presence of waves.
4.2.2 Drag and inertia coefficients valid for the flow regime and chosen wave theory should be
selected. Applicable test results may be used to select the coefficients. The effects of raw
water piping, ladders and other appendages should be considered in the calculation of the
force coefficients for the legs.
4.2.3 The effect of marine growth on the hydrodynamic loading should be considered. Because
jack-ups are mobile, opportunities are available to clean the leg if required. Where
existing marine growth is not to be cleaned or where the operation is to last long enough
for significant growth to occur the influence of growth on the leg hydrodynamic
properties should be considered. It may also be important to consider the timing of the
jack-up deployment in relation to the marine growth season.
4.3 Wind Forces
4.3.1 Wind forces should be computed using the one (1) minute mean wind velocity and
appropriate formulae and coefficients or should be derived from applicable wind tunnel
tests. Wind forces on legs can be a dominant factor for jack-ups operating at less than
their maximum design water depth. Generally, for site assessments, block areas are used
for the hull and appendages. The maximum value may be used for all headings or
alternatively directionality may be considered.
4.4 Reaction Point and Foundation Fixity
4.4.1 The selected reaction point at the spudcan should be specified clearly in the site
assessment. The selection of the reaction point should be based on the estimated
penetration using the geotechnical information from the site.
4.4.2 The jack-up's legs will normally be assumed to be pinned at the reaction point. Any
divergence from this assumption should be clearly stated together with the assumptions
for any moment fixity provided to the leg's cans by the soil.
4.4.3 For mat supported jack-ups the reaction is typically considered to act at the underside of
the mat bottom plating.
-8-
4.5 Stonn Approach Angle
4.5.1 The critical storm approach angles relative to the jack-up are usually different for the
various checks that are made (e.g., strength vs. overturning checks). The critical direction
for each check should be used as appropriate.
4.6 Centre of Gmvity
4.6.1 The location of the cantilever, substructure, and other significant weights should be
considered. If these differ for the Operating Condition and the Elevated Storm survival
condition, the practicality of making the changes required to achieve the Elevated Storm
survival condition should be established.
4.7 Displacement Dependent Loads
4.7.1 Loading effects that are a consequence of the displacement of the structure should be
considered in the analysis. These effects are due to the first order sway (P-delta), and its
enhancement due to the increased flexibility of the legs in the presence of axial loads
(Euler amplification).
4.8 Dynamic Effects
4.8.1 The following principles are outlined to provide an understanding of the dynamic
behaviour of a jack-up:
a) The structure will vibrate at its natural period if excited by the forces of ocean
waves.
b) The magnitude of this vibration is primarily influenced by the amount of wave

energy at or near the natural period of the structure and to a lesser extent by the
wave energy at other periods.
c) Such vibrations induce inertial loads which are the product of the mass and
acceleration of the system.
d) The total load on the system is the combination of static and inertial components.
The direct calculation and application of the inertial loads is preferable to the
application of a Dynamic Amplification Factor.
4.8.2 The dynamic response of the jack-up should always be considered, and is particularly
important for seastates having significant energy near the natural period of the jack-up or
multiples thereof.
-9-
4.9 Other Loads
4.9.1 In certain areas there may exist Regulatory requirements to investigate other types of
load. Examples may include:
Boat impact,
Earthquakes,
Ice loading, and
Blast over-pressure due to an explosion on an adjacent structure.
It is seldom necessary to consider such loads in combination with the maximum

environmental or functional loading.
- 10-
5. RESISTANCE
5.1 General
The key resistance checks include:
Overturning stability,
Foundations and preload, and
Structural integrity.
5.2 Overturning Stability
5.2.2 The check on the factor of safety on overturning is intended to ensure against uplift of the
windward leg(s). With an appropriate factor of safety this check may additionally serve
to ensure that there is adequate vertical load on the windward legs to prevent the sliding
of footings with small penetrations. Such sliding may cause load redistribution and
possible progressive collapse. For further details, and applicable factors of safety, refer to
the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE. Foundation fixity should only be included in the
evaluation of the overturning factor of safety when an applicable and detailed foundation
study has been made.
5.3 Foundation and Preload
5.3.1 The purpose of preloading is to develop adequate foundation capacity to resist the
extreme vertical and horizontal loadings. The jack-up should normally be capable of
preloading to exceed the maximum vertical soil loadings associated with the assessment
storm. Where there is insufficient preload capacity to meet the extreme loadings, a lower
preload may be acceptable when justified by appropriate geotechnical calculations.
5.3.2 If the penetrations obtained are significantly different to those predicted in the site
evaluation, further investigation should be undertaken to determine the reasons (e.g., the
jack-up's location may differ from that evaluated or local anomalies may exist below the
spudcans) before proceeding to full airgap.
5.3.3 Certain jack-ups are more sensitive than others to the effects of rapid leg penetration
when going on location. The structural behaviour of jack-ups under such conditions
varies considerably between different designs. Hence some jack-ups are more sensitive
to lateral loads and are more susceptible to local damage. It is therefore important that an
in-depth understanding of the behaviour of the subject jack-up is obtained if there is a risk
of rapid leg penetration (punch-through).
- 11 -
5.3.4 It is necessary to check the resistance to sliding. Such checks are likely to be most critical
when considering mat supported jack-ups. The windward leges) of independent leg jack-
ups which are subject to shallow penetrations are also likely to be critical.
5.4 Structural Integrity
5.4.1 Strength
Checks are required to ensure that the strength complies with the acceptance criteria. It
may be possible to compare the critical leg loadings to existing calculations in accordance
with the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE. Foundation fixity should only be included in
the evaluation of the upper leg when an applicable and detailed foundation study has been
made. Where foundation fixity may exist, the lower parts of the leg should be checked
assuming an upper bound fixity value.
Areas which are often critical on jack-up rigs are the legs at the lower guides, the legs
between guides, the lower guides, the pinions and/or rack teeth, the chocks and/or chock
supports (if chocks are fitted) and the leg to can or mat connection.
Any strength limitations with respect to maximum or minimum penetrations and/or

bearing area or amount of foundation fixity should be related to the geotechnical
information for the specific site.
5.4.2 Fatigue
Fatigue should be considered. This does not imply that a detailed assessment or analysis
will normally be required.
5.5 Adjacent Structures
5.5.1 It may be necessary to consider the interaction of the jack-up with any adjacent structures.
Possible topics to be included in the site specific assessment are the effects of the jack-
up's spudcans on the foundation of the adjacent structure and the effects of relative
motions on the drill-string, well conductor, well conductor guides, etc.
5.6 Other
5.6.1 The assessor should be aware that there may be other characteristics and/or peculiarities
of certain designs that will impact the site specific assessment. Additionally there may be
characteristics which vary within a design class that should be considered.
- 12 -
This page is intentionally left blank
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
FIRST EDITION - MAY 1994

(REVISION 2 -JAN 2002)
Rev Issue Date Details

Rev I May 1997 Changes made to pages 3, 9, 15, 19,20,24,36,42,61,65,66,67,73-77,87,88,90,
95,97,98,99,104,108,115,118,120,125,126,127,133 and 136
Revised areas indicated by sidelines thus: •
Rev 2 Jan 2002 Changes made to pages.
1,76,77,78,79,80,104,110,114,123,126,136,137,141
Revised areas indicated by double sidelines thus: II
NOTE:
The 1.15 value for the load factor given in Section 8 was the result of analytical studies II
on a limited number of jack-ups and should be considered provisional pending further
research. In the interim, alternative values can be used when acceptable rationale is
provided. Such alternative values would be applicable to all the Acceptance Criteria
Checks given herein.
Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment ofMobile Jack-Up Units Page 2
Rev 2, Jan 2002
This document has been evolved by a joint industry project (JIP) sponsored by a large
number of companies who are listed on the next page. Technical and administrative
management of the project has been provided by Noble Denton Consultancy Services
Ltd. This document has not been produced by SNAME although some SNAME
members have participated in its production. SNAME has, at the request of the working
group for the JIP, published this document so that it may be widely disseminated in
industry. However, SNAME takes no responsibility for any of the technical or other
contents of this document. SNAME cannot provide any technical or other support for
this document. For naval architects, engineers, or any other persons using this document,
technical support is available on a fee-paying basis from American Bureau of Shipping.
The contact at American Bureau of Shipping at the time of publication of this document
is:
Mr. Robert D. Bowie

Technical Secretary to SNAME OC-7 panel
ABS Americas
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, Texas 77060-6008
USA
FAX: (281) 877-6001

Phone: (281) 877-6580
Although this document is entitled "Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment
of Mobile Jack-up Units," it must not be construed as a recommended practice proposed
bySNAME.
© Copyright 2002 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 3
Rev 2, Jan 2002
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This RECOMMENDED PRACTICE has been drafted by the Working Group of the Joint
Industry Sponsored project "Jack-Up Site Assessment Procedures - Establishment of an
International Technical Guideline". Technical and administrative management has been
provided by Noble Denton Consultancy Services Limited. Funding was provided by the
Working Group members and the other Participants in the study listed below:
The Working Group

Friede & Goldman W.T. Bennett (Chair)
Noble Denton M.J.R. Hoyle (Technical Secretary)
ABS D.E. Jones
Amoco W.O. McCarron
BP R.O. Snell
Bureau Veritas L. Leblanc
DnV P .E. Bergrem
LeTourneau, Inc. (Marine Div.) J.P. Bowes (previously N.P. Smith) II
Lloyds Register W.J. Winkworth
Maersk Drilling G. Kudsk
MSC e.J. Mommaas
Noble Denton J.e. TrickeylB.P.M. Sharples
Reading & Bates R.W. Mowell
Santa Fe e.N. Springett
Sedco-Forex J.P. Cahuzac
Shell P.G.F. Sliggers
u.K. Health & Safety Executive M. BirkinshawlD. SmithIW.J. Supple
Other Participants
Phase 2 only:
AGIP S.P.A.
Norwegian Maritime Directorate
Phases 2 and 3: lADe sponsoring members:

ARCO Oil & Gas Co. Arethusa/Zapata Off-Shore Co.
Eiffel (UK) (ex CFEM) Chiles Offshore Corp.
National Energy Board - Canada (ex COGLA) Forasol
Elf Global Marine Drilling Co.
Enterprise Oil Japan Drilling Co.
Far East Levingston Shipbuilding Lauritzen Offshore
IADC (sponsoring members) Maersk Drilling
Maersk Olie Og Gas Neddrill Nederland B.V.
Mobil
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
Phillips Petroleum Company
Noble Drilling International
Penrod Drilling Corp.
Reading & Bates Drilling Co.
I
Statoil Rowan Companies, Inc.
Technip Geoproduction Saipem S.p.a
Texaco Santa Fe International
Sedco Forex Drilling Services
Smedvig A.S.
Also contributing:
KCA Drilling Group
Nabors brilling Intemat'l
Sonat Offshore Drilling Inc.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE NO
1 INTRODUCTION 9
2 OBJECTIVES 10
3 ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA 13
3.1 Rig data
3.2 Functional Loadings
3.3 Environmental Conditions - General
3.4 Wind
3.5 Waves
3.6 Current
3.7 Water Levels and Airgap
3.8 Temperatures
3.9 Marine Growth
3.10 Leg Length
3.11 Geotechnical and Geophysical Information
3.12 Bathymetric Survey
3.13 Seabed Surface Survey
3.14 Geophysical Information - Shallow Seismic Survey
3.15 Surface Soil Samples
3.16 Geotechnical Investigations
Glossary of Terms for Section 3
4 CALCULATION METHODS - HYDRODYNAMIC AND WIND 27

FORCES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Wind Force Calculations
4.3 Hydrodynamic Forces
4.4 Wave Theories and Analysis Methods
4.5 Current
4.6 Leg Hydrodynamic model
4.7 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Leg Members
4.8 Other Considerations
5 CALCULATION METHODS - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 42

5.1 General Conditions
5.2 Seabed Reaction Point
5.3 Foundation Fixity
5.4 Leg Inclination
5.5 P-~ Effects
5.6 Structural Modeling
- Introduction
- General considerations
- Applicability and limitations
- Modeling the leg
- Modeling the hull
- Modeling the hullfleg connection
- Modeling the spudcan
Rev 2, Jan 2002
CONTENTS (continued)
5.7 Load Application

- Self weight, variable and drilling loads
- Wind loads
- Hydrodynamic wave-current loads
- Inertial loads due to dynamic response
- Second order effects
Glossary of Tenns for Section 5
6 CALCULATION METHODS - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 61

6.1 Introduction
6.2 Prediction of Leg Penetration During Preloading
- Analysis method
- Penetration in clays
- Penetration in silica sands
- Penetration in carbonate sands
- Penetration in silts
- Penetration in layered soils
6.3 Foundation Stability Assessment
- Approach
- Ultimate bearing capacity for vertical loading
preload check (Step 1)
- Bearing capacity/sliding check - pinned footing (Step 2a)
- Footing with moment fixity and vertical and
horizontal stiffness (Step 2b)
- Displacement Check (Step 3)
6.4 Other aspects of jack-up unit foundation perfonnance
- Leaning Instability
- Footprint Considerations
- Scour
- Seafloor Instability
- Shallow Gas
- Spudcan-Pile Interaction
7 CALCULATION METHODS - DETERMINATION OF RESPONSES 89

7.1 General
7.2 Quasi-Static Extreme Response with Inertial Loadset
7.3 Dynamic Extreme Response
- Factors Governing Dynamics
- The Structural System
- The Excitation
- The Dynamic Analysis
- The Natural Period(s)
- Inertial Loadset Approaches
- Detailed Dynamic Analysis Methods
- Acceptance Criteria
7.4 Fatigue
- General
- Fatigue life requirements
- Fatigue sensitive areas
- General description of analysis
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 110

8.1 Structural Strength Check
- Introduction
- Definitions
- Factored loads
- Assessment of members (excluding stiffened and
high Rft tubulars)
- Assessment of other geometries
- Assessment of member joints
8.3 Foundation Assessment
- Step 1, Preload and sliding checks
- Step 2a, Capacity check - Pinned foundation
- Step 2b, Capacity check - With foundation fixity
- Step 3, Displacement check
- Punch-through
8.4 Horizontal Deflections
8.5 Loads in the Holding System
8.6 Hull
8.7 Structure Condition Assessment
REFERENCES 140
INDEX 142
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Overall flow chart for the assessment 12
Figure 3.1 Suggested current profile 19
Figure 4.1 Range and validity of different wave theories 32

for regular waves
Figure 4.2 Flow angles appropriate to a lattice leg 35
Figure 4.3 Gusset plates 37
Figure 4.4 Split tube chord and typical values for CDi 38
Figure 4.5 Triangular chord and typical values for C Di 39
Figure 5.1 Formulas for the determination of Equivalent 54

Member Properties
Figure 5.2 Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups 55

with a fixation system
Figure 5.3 Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups 56

without a fixation system and having a fixed
jacking system with opposed pinions
Recommended Practicefor Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 8
Rev 2, Jan 2002
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Foundation risks, methods for evaluation and 22

prevention
Table 4.1 Height coefficients 28
Table 4.2 Shape coefficients 29
Table 4.3 Base hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars 36
Table 5.1 Applicability of the suggested models 48
Table 7.1 Recommended damping from various sources 102
Table 7.2 Recommendations for application of dynamic 104

analysis methods
Table 7.3 Recommendations for determining MPM 105

Rev 2, Jan 2002
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this document is to provide a Recommended Practice (PRACTICE) for
use with the 'Guideline for Site Specific Assessment of Jack-Up Units' (GUIDELINE).
Each assessment should address the areas of this document as appropriate for the
particular jack-up and location as described in Section 1.4 of the GUIDELINE.
1.2 This document has been formulated as a result of a Joint Industry Project involving all
sections of the industry. It is not intended to obviate the need for applying sound
judgment as to when and where this PRACTICE should be utilized.
1.3 The formulation and publication of this PRACTICE is not in any way intended to impose
calculation methods or procedures on any party. It leaves freedom to apply alternative
practices within the framework of the accompanying GUIDELINE.
1.4 This PRACTICE relates only to the assessment of independent leg jack-up units in the
elevated condition. The development has been based on 3 legged truss-leg units and
caution is advised when applying the PRACTICE to other configurations. Transportation
to and from the site and moving on and moving off location are not covered in this
document.
1.5 This PRACTICE may be revised if and when more information/research results become
available.
1.6 For further details of the applicability and limitations, refer to the GUIDELINE.
1.7 This PRACTICE may be used by anyone desiring to do so, and a diligent effort has
been made by the authors to assure the accuracy and reliability of the information
contained herein. However, the authors make no representation, warranty or
guarantee in connection with the· publication of this PRACTICE and hereby
expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility for loss, damage or injury resulting
from its use, for any violation of local regulations with which a recommendation
may conflict, or for the infringement of any patent resulting from the use of this
publication.
1.8 The load factors presented in Section 8 herein were determined from the reliability
analysis of a limited number of jack-up/site combinations. The load factors are
provisional pending the further evaluation of the results from a wider range of
assessments by the SNAME OC-7 panel.
See also the Note at the foot of the cover page of this document. I
Rev 2, Jan 2002
2 OBJECTIVES
2.1 The principal objective of this PRACTICE is to provide acceptance criteria and
associated engineering methods that may be applied in the site specific assessment of a
jack-up to:
a) Establish the geometric suitability of the jack-up with respect to leg length, airgap and
leg penetration.
b) Establish that the jack-up is structurally adequate for its intended application.
c) Ensure that the foundation can offer suitable support to meet this objective.
d) Ensure adequate overturning stability.
2.2 This PRACTICE is applicable to the various possible modes of jack-up operation
(drilling, production, accommodation, construction, etc.) in all areas of the world. It
should be noted that different extreme environmental return periods may be appropriate
for manned and unmanned operations.
2.3 The user of this PRACTICE is advised that, in some areas of the world, the requirements
of the local regulatory bodies may be more onerous than those recommended herein.
2.4 Scope of the Assessment
2.4.1 The primary objective of the site specific assessment is to ensure the integrity of the jack-
up in the elevated condition. The assumptions incorporated into the assessment must
conform with the structural condition of the unit.
2.4.2 The assessment will normally assume that the jack-up is in sound mechanical and
structural condition and it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that this is so. The
existence of valid documents indicating that the jack-up is presently in class by a
recognized classification society is usually sufficient to verify the mechanical and
structural condition of the jack-up to the assessor.
2.4.3 Accidental loads (dropped objects, ship impact, etc.) are not specifically addressed and
should be covered at the design stage. Furthermore, the site specific assessment
addresses the global structural integrity, hence local damage not affecting the overall
integrity is outside the scope of the PRACTICE.
2.4.4 As indicated in Section 1.4.1 of the GUIDELINE, the assessment of the jack-up may be
carried out at various degrees of complexity. These are as expanded below, at increasing
levels of complexity. The objective of the assessment is to show that the acceptance
criteria of Section 8 of this PRACTICE are met. If this is achieved by a particular level
there is no need to consider a more complex level.
1. Compare site conditions with design conditions or other existing assessments

determined in accordance with this PRACTICE.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
2.4.4 2. Carry out appropriate calculations according to the simple methods given in this
PRACTICE. Possibly compare results with those from existing more
detailed/complex calculations.
3. Carry out appropriate detailed calculations according to the more complex methods
given in this PRACTICE.
In all cases the adequacy of the foundation should be assessed.
An overall flow chart for the assessment is given in Figure 2.1 overleaf.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Cbtain jaclc-1,4) data, Sectia'l 3.1.

Establish proposec;j Weiilhts and C.ofG.'s Sectia'l3.2.
Cbtain Envircrmental data, Sectia'lS 3.3, t4, 3.5 & 3.6.
Cbtain Geotechnical data, Sectia'lS 3.11 • 3.16.
1
Wi II 'other aspects' l imi t sui tabil i tv: Yes Prewnt:atiYe measures
- ~ics, Sectfa'l 4.8. available and will
- Foundatia'lS Sectia'l 6.4. be adopted?
- Calditi«i oJ lIlit, Sectia'l 8.7
Yes No
No
IDetennine airgap, Secticrl 3.7 ~or as dictated by.other ccn&ideratiCl)S. if higher).

Estlnate leg penetratla'lS (based crI RBXHIUII preload), Sectlcr1 6.2. 11~?kl
1 No
No
lIS aclec:JJate leg lqth avai lable? Secticrl 3.10. Choose to calculate
reqJi red preload and
1Yes re-assess penetratia'l
and leg lei-gth?
Yes IAj:{>l icable calculations ac:corcIi~ to PRACTICE
exIst and sh<lW acceptabil ity? Secticrl 2.4.4.
I
Yes
IAssess fa.rdatia'l~
Sections 6.3 & 8. •
I Not ac
No
ac
I Establish wind loads Sectia'l 4.2, h~ic coefficients,
t
Sectia'lS 4.6 & 4. • Prepare analysis m:x:Iels, Sectia'l 5. I
1
IDetennine responses (e.g. SDOF method), Secticrl 7/Figure 7.1. I
1 Not ac
IAssess structure and overt1.mi~, Sections 8.',8.2,8.5, 8.6 & 8.7. F
lac
Ilf~!:"~
& leg l
re-assess penetratia'l
, Sectia'lS 6.2 & 3. to.
I Not ac
ac
Not ac
IAssess foundaticrl, Sections 6.3 & 8.3/Figure 6.9.
ac
Not ac
Ilf applicable, checIc horizcrltal
deflectia'lS, Sectia'l 8.4.
I
ac
Choose more detailed:
- Response calculatia'l
(Section 7/Figure 7.1).
- R=:; calculatia'l
inc u:iing foundatia'l
fixity
-
Yes
(Sectla'l 7/Figure 7.1 &
Sectia'l 6.3/Figure 6.10).
No
I LtlIT
SUITABLE I I ~IT
UNSUITABLE I
Figure 2.1 - Overall flow chart for the assessment

Rev 2, Jan 2002
3 ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA
3.1 Rig data
3.1.1 The infonnation that may be required to perfonn the assessment is outlined in Section 2.1
of the GUIDELINE.
3.1.2 The operating procedures and limitations of the jack-up should be clearly defined in the
Operating Manual. Those sections of the Operating Manual which give relevant
infonnation and are required to perfonn a site assessment in accordance with this
PRACTICE are to be provided.
3.2 Functional Loadings
3.2.1 The operating and survival conditions may be treated separately, provided it is practical to
change the mode of the jack-up unit from operating to survival mode on receipt of an
unfavorable weather forecast, and appropriate procedures exist. The limits of operational
loading conditions may depend on the drilling program proposed and consideration
should be given to loadings on the conductors if supported by the jack-up.
3.2.2 For both operational and survival conditions, the following shall be defined:
a) Maximum and minimum elevated weight and weight distribution (fixed and variable
load), excluding legs. In the absence of other infonnation the minimum elevated
weight may normally be determined assuming 50% of the variable load permitted by
the operating manual.
b) Extreme limits of center of gravity position (or reactions of the elevated weight on the
legs) for the conditions in a) above.
c) Substructure and derrick position, hook load, rotary load, setback and conductor
tensions for the conditions in a) above.
d) Weight, center of gravity and buoyancy of the legs.
3.2.3 With reference to Section 4.1.3 of the GUIDELINE, if a minimum elevated weight or a
limitation of center of gravity position is required to meet the overturning safety factor in
survival conditions, then the addition of water in lieu of variable load is permitted,
provided that:
a) Maximum allowable loadings are not exceeded.
b) Procedures, equipment and instructions exist for performing the operation.
c) The maximum variable load, including added water, is used for all appropriate
assessment checks (preload, stress, etc.).
3.3 Environmental Conditions - General

Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.3.1 The environmental data required for an assessment and their application are discussed in
Section 2.3 of the GUIDELINE.
3.3.2 Section 2.3 of the GUIDELINE recommends that 50 year return period extremes are
nonnally used, however in particular circumstances other return periods may be
appropriate.
3.3.3 Unless there is specific data to the contrary, wind, wave and current loadings shall be
considered to be those caused by the individual return period extremes acting in the same
direction and at the same time as the extreme water level. Seasonally adjusted values
may be adopted as appropriate to the duration of the operation.
Note:
Where directional and/or seasonal data are utilized, these should generally be factored so
that the data for the worst direction and/or season equals the omni-directionallall-year
data for the assessment return period.
3.4 Wind
3.4.1 The wind velocity shall be the 1 minute sustained wind for the assessment return period,
related to a reference level of 1O.Om above mean sea level. The Commentary discusses
the conversion of data for averaging periods other than 1 minute to 1 minute values.
3.4.2 The wind velocity profile is nonnally taken as a power law with exponent Xo unless site
specific data indicates otherwise (see Section 4.2.2).
3.4.3 Different jack-up configurations (weight, center of gravity, cantilever position, etc.) may
be specified for operating and survival modes. In such cases, the maximum wind velocity
considered for the operating mode should not exceed that permitted for the change to the
survi val mode.
3.5 Waves
3.5.1 The extreme wave height environment used for survival conditions shall, as a minimum,
be computed according to the following sub-sections based on the three-hour stonn
duration with an intensity defined by the significant wave height, Hsrp , for the assessment
return period. The seasonally adjusted wave height may be used as appropriate for the
operation.
The wave height infonnation for a specific location may also be expressed in tenns of
Hmax , the individual extreme wave height for the return period, rather than the significant
wave height Hsrp. The relationship between Hsrp and Hmax must be determined accounting
for the effects of stonns (longer than 3 hours) and for the additional probability of other
return period stonns (see Commentary Section C3.5.1). This relationship will depend on
the site specific conditions, however Hsrp may usually be determined from Hmax using the
generally accepted relationship for non-cyclonic areas:
Hsrp =Hmax / 1. 86
For cyclonic areas the recommended relationship is:
Hsrp =Hmax/l. 7 5
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.5.1 Note:
The wave load can be computed either stochastically (through a random frequency or
time domain approach) or deterministically (through an individual maximum wave
approach). The scaled wave heights for the two approaches are discussed in Sections
3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 respectively (see Commentary). The scaled wave heights are to be
used only in conjunction with the associated kinematics modeling recommended in
Section 4.4 and the hydrodynamic coefficients given in Sections 4.6 to 4.8.
3.5.1.1 For stochastic/random wave force calculations Airy wave theory is implied, see Section
4.4.2. To account for wave asymmetry, which is not included in Airy wave theory, a
scaling of the significant wave height should be applied to capture the largest wave forces
at the maximum crest amplitude. The effective significant wave height, Hs, may be
determined as a function of the water depth, d in meters, from:
Hs = [1 + 0.5e(-dl25)] Hsrp (d;::: 25m)
and should be used with the wave kinematics model described in Section 4.4.2.
For water depths less than 25m a regular wave analysis should be considered.
The selection of wave period for use in stochastic/random wave force analysis is
I
discussed in Section 3.5.3 and the Note thereto.
3.5.1.2 For deterministic/regular wave force calculations it is appropriate to apply a reduced

wave height, ~et' in order to obtain realistic force estimates (see Commentary). ~et may
be determined as a function of Hsrp from:
~et = 1.60 Hsrp
and should be used with an appropriate wave kinematics model in accordance with
Section 4.4.1. It should be noted that the factor 1.60 implicitly includes a 0.86 kinematics
reduction factor to account for the conservatism of deterministiciregular wave kinematics
I
traditionally accomplished by adjusting the hydrodynamic properties.
In the analysis a single value for the wave period Tass, in seconds, associated with the
maximum wave may be considered. Unless site specific information indicates otherwise
Tass will normally be between the following limits:
3.44 ~(Hsrp) < Tass < 4.42 ~(Hsrp)
where Hsrp is the return period extreme significant wave height in meters.
3.5.2 For airgap calculations the wave crest elevation may be obtained from the formulations of
an appropriate deterministic wave theory (see Section 4.4.1) and the maximum wave
height, H max , from the relationship:
Hmax =1.86 Hsrp
In Tropical Revolving Storm areas the relationship:
Hmax = 1.75 Hsrp
may alternatively be applied.
It is noted that the minimum return period recommended by the GUIDELINE for Hsrp for
airgap calculations is 50 years, even if a lower return period is used for other purposes.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.5.3 Where the analysis method requires the use of spectral data, the choice of the analytical
wave spectrum and associated spectral parameters should reflect the width and shape of
spectra for the site and significant wave height under consideration. In cases where fetch
and duration of extreme winds are sufficiently long a fully developed sea will result (this
is rarely realized except, for example, in areas subject to monsoons). Such conditions
may be represented by a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. Where fetch or duration of
extreme winds is limited, or in shallow water depths, a JONSWAP spectrum may
normally be applied (see Note at the end of this Section).
The wave spectrum can be represented by the power density of wave surface elevation
S1]1](f) as a function of wave frequency by:
[Note: An alternative formulation is given in the Commentary]

where;
q = exp(-(Tpf-l)2120'2) with:
0' = 0.07 for Tpf <= 1
0' = 0.09 for Tpf > 1 (Carter 1982, [1])
and;
Hs = significant wave height (meters), including depth correction, according
to Section 3.5.1.1
Tp = peak period (seconds)
f = frequency (Hz)
Y = peak enhancement factor
Io(y) = is discussed below.
The above definition yields a single parameter Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum when y = 1

=
and Tp 5~(Hs)' with Hs in meters. In this case an appropriate TpfTz ratio is 1.406 (see
below).
When considering a JONSWAP spectrum, the peak enhancement factor y varies between
1 and 7 with a most probable average value of 3.3. There is no firm relationship between
y, Hs and Tp. Relationships between variables for different y according to Carter (1982)
[1] are as follows:
y Io(y) TfI'z
1 .200 1.406
2 .249 1.339
3 .293 1.295 [ Alternatively: ]
3.3 .305 1.286 0.2
4 .334 1.260 Io (y) = 1- O.287Ln(y)
5 .372 1.241
6 .410 1.221
7 446 1.205
Unless site specific information indicates otherwise y =3.3 may be used.

Rev 2, Jan 2002
For a given significant wave height the wave period depends on the significant wave
steepness which in extreme seas in deep water often lies within the range 1120 to 1/16.
This leads to an expression for zero-upcrossing period Tz, related to Hsrp in meters, as
follows:
3.2~(Hsrp) <Tz<3.6~(Hsrp)
However in shallow water the wave steepness can increase to 1112 or more, leading to a
zero-upcrossing period Tz as low as 2.8 ~(Hsrp) . This is because the wave height
increases and wave length decreases for a given Tz.
Note:
If a JONSW AP spectrum is applied the response analysis should consider a range of
periods associated with Hsrp based on the most probable value of Tp plus or minus one
standard deviation. However it should be ensured that the assumptions made in deriving
the spectral period parameters are consistent with the values used in the analysis.
Alternatively, applicable combinations of wave height and period may be obtained from a
scatter diagram determined from site specific measurements; in this case specialist advice
should be obtained on a suitable spectral form for the location. To avoid the need for
analyses of several wave periods a practical alternative is to use a 2 parameter spectrum
with y = 1.0 in combination with the site specific most probable peak period.
3.5.4 For stochastic/random wave force calculations, the short-crestedness of waves (i.e. the
angular distribution of wave energy about the dominant direction) may be accounted for
when site-specific information indicates that such effects are applicable. In all cases the
potential for increased response due to short-crested waves should be investigated. The
effect may be included by means of a directionality function F(a), as follows:
ST]T](f, a) = ST]T](f).F(a)
where;
a =angle between direction of elementary wave trains and dominant
direction of the short-crested waves.
ST]T](f, a) =directional short-crested power density spectrum.
F( a) = directionality function.
and, in the absence of more reliable data:
1t 1t
F(a) = C.Cos 2na for - - :$ a:$ -
2 2
where;
n power constant
C = constant chosen such that:
1tI2
L F(a) .da = 1.0
-1tI2
The power constant n, should not normally be taken as less than:

n = 2.0 for fatigue analysis
n = 4.0 for extreme analysis
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.5.5 Where the natural period of the jack-up is such that it may respond dynamically to waves
(Section 7.3), the maximum dynamic response may be caused by wave heights or
seastates with periods outside the ranges given in Sections 3.5.1.2 and 3.5.3. Such
conditions shall also be investigated to ensure that the maximum (dynamic plus quasi-
static) response is determined.
3.5.6 For fatigue calculations (Section 7.4), the long term wave climate may be required. For
the purposes of the fatigue analysis the long-term data may be presented deterministically
in terms of the annual number of waves predicted to fall into each height/period/direction
group. Alternatively the probability of occurrence for each seastate (characterized by
wave energy spectra and the associated physical parameters) may be presented in the form
of a significant wave height versus zero-upcrossing period scatter diagram or as a table of
representative seastates.
3.6 Current
3.6.1 The extreme wind driven surface current velocity shall be that associated with the
assessment return period wind, seasonally adjusted if appropriate. When directional
information regarding other current velocity components is available the maximum
surface flow of the mean spring tidal current and the assessment return period surge
current, seasonally adjusted if appropriate, shall be vectorially added in the down-wind
direction and combined with the wind driven surface current as indicated in Section 3.6.2.
If directional data are not available the components shall be assumed to be omni-
directional and shall be summed algebraically.
Note: A site specific study will normally be required to define the current velocity
components.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.6.2 The current profile may be expressed as a series of velocities at certain stations from
seabed to water surface. Unless site specific data indicates otherwise, and in the absence
of other residual currents (such as circulation, eddy currents, slope currents, internal
waves, inertial currents, etc.), an appropriate method for computing current profile is (see
Figure 3.1):
Vc = V t + Vs + (Vw - Vs) [(h+z)/h], for Izl ~ h and Vs < Vw
for Izl > h or V5 ~ V W
where;
Vc= current velocity as a function of z. Note that a reduction may be

applicable according to Section 4.5.
Vt = downwind component of mean spring tidal current.
Vs = downwind component of associated surge current (excluding wind driven
component).
wind generated surface current. In the absence of other data this may
conservatively be taken as 2.6% of the 1 minute sustained wind velocity at
10m.
I
h = reference depth for wind driven current. In the absence of other data h
shall be taken as 5 meters.
z = distance above still water level (SWL) under consideration (always
negative).
Vt) Vw
2
Vs
[)
Figure 3.1 - Suggested current profile
3.6.3 In the presence of waves the current profile should be stretched/compressed such that the
surface component remains constant. This may be achieved by substituting the elevation
as described in Section 4.4.2. Alternative methods may be suitable, however mass
continuity methods are not recommended. The current profile may be changed by wave
breaking. In such cases the wind induced current could be more uniform with depth.
3.6.4 For a fatigue analysis, current may normally be neglected.

Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.7 Water Levels and Airgap
3.7.1 The water depth at the location shall be determined and related to lowest astronomical
tide (LAT). The relationship between LAT and Chart Datum is discussed in the
Commentary.
3.7.2 The mean water level (MWL) related to the seabed shall be expressed as the mean level
between highest astronomical tide (HAT) and lowest astronomical tide (LAT) i.e.:
MWL =(RAT + LAT)/2
3.7.3 The extreme still water level (SWL) shall be expressed as a height above LAT, and shall
be the sum of;
Mean high water spring tide (MEWS)

+ 50 year extreme storm surge (see Note 1).
unless reliable data indicates that an alternative summation is appropriate.
3.7.4 When lower water levels are more onerous the minimum still water level (SWL) to be
considered in the loading calculations shall be the sum of:
Mean Low Water Spring Tide (MLWS)

+ 50 year negative Storm Surge.
3.7.5 The Airgap (see Note 2) is defined in Section 3.2 of the GUIDELINE as the distance
between the underside of the hull and LAT during operations. It shall be not less than the
sum of:
Distance of the extreme still water level (SWL), from Section 3.7.3, above LAT
+ 50 year extreme wave crest height associated with Hmax as defined in
Section 3.5.2 (see Note 1),
+ 1.5m Clearance to the underside of the hull (or any other vulnerable part
attached to the hull, if lower). See Commentary.
Notes: 1. Section 3.2.1 of the GUIDELINE recommends that values for a return period
of no less than 50 years be applied, even if a lower return period is used for
other purposes.
2. The definition of Airgap used herein differs from that used in other areas of
offshore engineering where the Clearance used here is often defined as Airgap.
In areas subject to freak waves a higher airgap may be applicable.
I
3.8 Temperatures
The lowest average daily air and water temperatures shall be compared with the steel
design temperature limits of appropriate parts of the jack-up. If these are not met,
suitable adjustments should be made to the properties applied in the strength assessment.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.9 Marine Growth
Where existing marine growth is not to be cleaned between locations or where the
operation is to last long enough for significant growth to occur, the influence of growth
on the leg hydrodynamic properties should be considered as stated in Section 4.2.3 of the
GUIDELINE. Where applicable, location specific data should be obtained. In the
absence of such data, default values for thickness and distribution are given in Section
4.7.3.
3.10 Leg Length
Recommendations regarding the reserve leg length are given In Section 3.3 of the
GUIDELINE.
3.11 Geotechnical and Geophysical Information
Adequate geotechnical and geophysical information must be available to assess the

location and the foundation stability. Aspects which should be investigated are shown in
Table 3.1 and are discussed in more detail in the referenced Sections. The information
obtained from the surveys and investigations set out in Sections 3.12 to 3.16 is required
for areas where there is no data available from previous operations. In areas where
information is available it may be possible to reduce the requirements set out below by
use of information obtained from other surveys or activities in the area. See Section 2.4
of the GUIDELINE.
3.12 Bathymetric Survey
3.12.1 An appropriate bathymetric survey should be supplied for an area approximately 1

kilometer square centered on the location. Line spacing of the survey should typically be
not greater than 100 meters x 250 meters over the survey area. Interlining is to be
performed within an area 200 meters x 200 meters centered on the location. Interlining
should have spacing not exceeding 25 meters x 50 meters.
3.12.2 Further interlining should be performed if any irregularities are detected.
3.13 Seabed Surface Survey
3.13.1 The seabed surface shall be surveyed using sidescan sonar or high resolution multi beam
echosounder techniques and shall be of sufficient quality to identify obstructions and
seabed features and should cover the immediate area (normally a 1 Ian square) of the
intended location. The slant range selection shall give a minimum of 100% overlap
between adjacent lines. A magnetometer survey may also be required if there are buried
pipelines, cables and other metallic debris located on or slightly below the sea floor.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
REFERENCE
METHODS FOR EVALUATION & PREVENTION SECTION(S)
Installation problems - Bathymetric survey 3.12
Punch-through - Shallow seismic survey 3.14

- Soil sampling and other geotechnical 3.16
testing and analysis 6.2.6
Settlement under storm - Shallow seismic survey 3.14

loadinglBearing failure - Soil sampling and other geotechnical 3.16
- Ensure adequate jack-up preload capability 6.3
Sliding failure - Shallow seismic survey 3.14

- Increase vertical footing reaction
- Modify the footing(s)
Scour - Bathymetric survey (identify sand 3.12

waves) 3.15
- Surface soil samples and seabed currents 6.4.3
- Inspect footing foundations regularly
- Install scour protection (gravel bag/
artificial seaweed) when anticipated
Seafloor instability - Side scan sonar, shallow seismic 3.13

(mudslides) survey 3.14
Gas pockets/ - Digital seismic with attribute 3.14

Shallow gas analysis processing (shallow seismic) 6.4.5
Faults - Shallow seismic survey 3.14
Metal or other object, - Magnetometer and side scan sonar 3.13

sunken wreck, anchors, - DiverlROV inspection
pipelines etc.
Local holes (depressions) - Side scan sonar 3.13

in seabed, reefs, - DiverlROV inspection
pinnacle rocks
or wooden wreck
Legs stuck in mud - Geotechnical data 3.14

- Consider change in footings 3.16
- Jetting
Footprints of previous - Evaluate location records 3.12

jack-ups - Consider filling/modification 3.13
of holes as necessary 6.4.2
Table 3.1 - Foundation risks, methods for evaluation and prevention

Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.13.2 Where seabed obstructions such as pipelines and wellheads are known to be present,
sufficient infonnation to enable safe positioning of the jack-up is required. In some cases
an ROV or diver's inspection may be required in addition to a sidescan sonar survey.
3.13.3 Seabed surface surveys can become out-of-date, particularly in areas of

construction/drilling activity or areas with mobile sediments. Good judgment should be
used regarding the applicability of all surveys, especially with regard to validity. In open
locations the maximum period for the validity of seabed surveys for debris and mobile
sediment conditions should be determined taking account of local conditions. For
locations close to existing installations seabed surveys for debris and sediment conditions
should, subject to practical considerations, be undertaken immediately prior to the arrival
of the jack-up at the location.
3.14 Geophysical Investigation - Shallow Seismic Survey
3.14.1 The principal objectives of the shallow seismic survey are:
To determine near surface soil stratigraphy. This requires correlation of the

seismic data with (existing) soil boring data in the vicinity.
To reveal the presence of shallow gas concentrations.
Due to the qualitative nature of seismic surveys it is not possible to conduct analytical
foundation appraisals based on seismic data alone. This requires correlation of the
seismic data with soil boring data in the vicinity through similar stratigraphy.
3.14.2 A shallow seismic survey should be performed over an approximately 1 kilometer square
area centered on the location. Line spacing of the survey should typically not be greater
than 100 meters x 250 meters over the survey area. Equipment should normally be
capable of giving detailed data to a -depth equal to the greater of 30 meters or the
anticipated footing penetration plus 1.5 to 2 times the footing diameter. Further guidance
on seismic surveys is given in reference [2].
3.14.3 The survey report should include at least two vertical cross-sections passing through the
location showing all relevant reflectors and allied geological information. The equipment
used should be capable of identifying reflectors of 0.5m and thicker.
3.15 Surface Soil Samples
The site investigation should be sufficient to identify the character of the soil surface and
allow evaluation of the possibility of scour occurring. (See Commentary to Section 6.4.3)
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3.16 Geotechnical Investigations
3.16.1 Site specific geotechnical testing is recommended in areas where any of the following
apply:
the shallow seismic survey cannot be interpreted with any certainty,

significant layering of the strata is indicated,
the location is in a new operating area,
the area is known to be potentially hazardous.
3.16.2 A geotechnical investigation should comprise a minimum of one borehole to a depth

equal to 30 meters or the anticipated footing penetration plus 1.5 to 2 times the footing
diameter, whichever is the greater. All the layers should be adequately investigated and
the transition zones cored at a sufficient sampling rate.
The number of boreholes required should account for the lateral variability of the soil
conditions, regional experience and the geophysical investigation. When a single
borehole is made, the preferred location is at the center of the leg pattern at the intended
location.
3.16.3 "Undisturbed" soil sampling and laboratory testing and/or in-situ cone penetrometer
testing may be conducted. Other recognized types of in-situ soil testing may be
appropriate such as vane shear and/or pressure meter tests.
3.16.4 The geotechnical report should include borehole logs, cone penetrometer records (if
appropriate) and documentation of all laboratory tests, together with interpreted soil
design parameters. Design parameters should be selected by a competent person. For the
methods recommended in Section 6, the design parameters should include profiles of
undrained shear strength and/or effective stress parameters, soil indices (plasticity,
liquidity, grain size, etc.), relative density, unit weight and, where applicable, the over
consolidation ratio (OCR).
Additional soil testing to provide shear moduli and cyclic/dynamic behavior may be
required if more comprehensive analysis are to be applied or where the soil strength may
deteriorate under cyclic loading.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA
C = Constant in expression for F(a).

d = Water depth.
f = Wave frequency.
F(a) = Directionality function
= C.Cos 2na
h = Reference depth for wind driven current.
= 5.0 m in the absence of other data.
HAT = Water depth at highest astronomical tide.
~et = Reduced wave height which may be used for deterministic wave force
calculations, allowing for the conservatisms of higher order wave theories.
= 1.60 Hsrp
Hmax = The individual extreme wave height for a given return period defined as the
wave height with an annual probability of exceedence of lIreturn period (e.g.
the 50 year return period Hm has a 2% annual probability of exceedence).
Where local data is not available:
Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp (for non-tropic revolving storm areas),
Hmax = 1.75 Hsrp (for tropical revolving storm areas.)
When Hmax is used for airgap calculations the minimum return period for Hsrp is
recommended as 50 years, even if a lower return period is used for other
purposes.
Hs = Significant wave height (meters), including depth/asymmetry correction,
according to Section 3.5.1.1.
Hsrp = The assessment return period significant wave height for a three hour storm.
Io(y) = Parameter depending on y used in the expression for ST]T](f).
LAT = Water depth at lowest astronomical tide.
MHWS = Height of mean high water spring tide above LAT.
MLWS = Height of mean low water spring tide above LAT.
MWL = Mean water level related to the seabed.
n = Power constant in expression for F( a).
= 20r4.
q = Exponent in expression for ST]T](f).
= exp(-(Tpf-I )212(i)
ST]T](f) = Power density spectrum of long crested wave surface elevation as a function of
frequency, f.
= (16Io(Y)rlHs~p(Tpf)-5exp(-1.25/(Tpf)4)f
ST]T](f,a) = Power density spectrum of short-crested wave surface elevation as a function of
frequency, f.
= ST]T](f).F( a)
SWL = Height of extreme still water level above LAT.
= MHWS + 50 year storm surge.
= MLWS + 50 year negative storm surge (if more onerous).
Tass = Wave period associated with Hmax (also used with ~et).
Tp = Peak period associated with Hsrp (also used with Hs).
Tz = Zero-upcrossing period associated with Hsrp (also used with Hs).
Vc = Current velocity as a function of z.
Vs = Downwind component of surge current.
Vt = Downwind component of mean spring tidal current.
Vw = Wind generated surface current.
= 2.6% of 1 minute sustained wind velocity at 10m, in the absence of other data.
z = Distance above still water level used in determination of V c.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA (Continued)
a = Angle between direction of elementary wave trains and dominant direction of

short-crested waves.
y = Peak enhancement factor used in expression for STlTl(f). For JONSW AP
spectrum varies between 1 and 7 with a most probable average value of 3.3.
(j
= Constant in expression for q
= 0.07 for T pf <= 1
= 0.09 for Tpf > 1
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4 CALCULATION METHODS - HYDRODYNAMIC AND WIND FORCES
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 The models, methods and coefficients given in this Section are matched to represent a
consistent method such that the whole Section should be considered together. No force
coefficients should be used unless they correspond to a particular stated analysis method.
4.1.2 The environmental forces may be determined according to the recommendations of this
Section based on the dimensions of the members and the environmental criteria as
described in Section 3 (wind speed, wave height and period and current velocity and
profile).
4.1.3 Since differences in shape, proportions and even detail can result in considerable
differences in the resultant forces, rational data from model testing may be used by the
assessor at his discretion subject to the conditions of Section 4.7.6.
4.2 Wind Force Calculations
4.2.1 For wind load application according to Section 5.7.2, the wind force for each component
(divided into blocks of not more than 15m vertical extent), F wi , may be computed using
the formula:
FWi = PiAWi
where;
Pi = the pressure at the center of the block.
AWi = the projected area of the block considered.
and the pressure Pi shall be computed using the formula:
Pi = 0.5 P (Vref)2 Ch Cs
where;
3
p = density of air (to be taken as 1.2224 kglm unless an alternative value
can be justified for the location).
V ref = the 1 minute sustained wind velocity at reference elevation (normally
10m above MWL), see Section 3.4.1.
Ch = height coefficient, as given in Section 4.2.2.
Cs = shape coefficient, as given in Section 4.2.3.
Note:
The wind area of the hull and associated structures (excluding derrick and legs) may
normally be taken as the profile area viewed from the direction under consideration.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.2.2 Ch may be derived from the wind velocity profile;
vz = V ref (ZlZref) lIN
where;
vz = the wind velocity at elevation Z.
Vref = the 1 minute sustained wind velocity at elevation Zref (normally 10m
above MWL), see Section 3.4.1.
N = 10 unless site specific data indicate that an alternative value of N is

appropriate.
Hence:
Alternatively, the approximate coefficients shown in Table 4.1 may be applied. The
height is the vertical distance from the still water surface to the center of area of the block
considered. Blocks which have a vertical dimension greater than 15 m shall be sub-
divided, and the appropriate height coefficients applied to each part of the block.
Height Height coefficient

m Ch
0- 15 1.00
15 - 30 1.18
30 - 45 1.30
45 - 60 1.39
60 - 75 1.47
75 - 90 1.53
90 - 105 1.58
105 - 120 1.62
120 - 135 1.66
135 - 150 1.70
150 - 165 1.74
165 - 180 1.77
180 - 195 1.80
Table 4.1 - Height coefficients
In deriving Table 4.1 the wind velocity used to obtain Ch for the block below 15.0m is the
Vref value. For all other blocks the Ch value is that for the mid-height of the block. When
using Table 4.1 the wind velocity is derived from Section 3.4.1 for a reference height of
10m above the still water.
Recommended Practice jor Site Specific Assessment oj Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 29
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.2.3 Shape coefficients shall be derived from Table 4.2;
Type of member or Shape coefficient

structure Cs
Hull side, (flat side) 1.0, based on total projected area
Deckhouses, jack-frame 1.1, based on the total projected

structure, sub-structure, draw- area (i.e. the area enclosed by the
works house, and other above- extreme contours of the structure)
deck blocks
Leg sections projecting above Cs = CDe as determined from
jack-frame structure and below Section 4.6, except that marine
the hull growth may be omitted. AWi
determined from De and section
length.
Isolated tubulars (crane 0.5

pedestals, etc.)
Isolated structural shapes 1.5, based on member projected

(angles, channels, box, 1- area
sections)
Derricks, crane booms, flare The appropriate shape coefficient

towers (open lattice sections for the members concerned
only, not boxed- in sections) applied to 50% of the total
projected profile area of the item
(25% from each of the front and
back faces)
Shapes or combinations of shapes which do not readily fall into the
above categories will be subject to special consideration
Table 4.2 - Shape coefficients
4.3 Hydrodynamic Forces
4.3.1 Wave and current forces on slender members having cross sectional dimensions
sufficiently small compared with the wave length should be calculated using Morison's
equation. Note: Morison's equation is normally applicable providing:
A > 5Di where;

A = wavelength and
Di = reference dimension of member (e.g. tubular diameter)
Morison's equation specifies the force per unit length as the vector sum:
LlF =LlFdrag + LlFinertia = 0.5 P D CD Vn IVn I+ P CM A Un

where the terms of the equation are described in the following.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.3.2 To obtain the drag force, the appropriate drag coefficient (CD) is to be chosen in
combination with a reference diameter, including any required additions for marine
growth, as described in Section 4.7.
The Morison's drag force fonnulation is:

~drag =
0.5 P Co D Vn Vn I I
where;
~drao0 = drag force (per unit length) nOlmal to the axis of the member
considered in the analysis and in the direction of vn.
P = mass density of water (nonnally 1025 kglm3 ).
Co = =
drag coefficient ( CDi or COe from Section 4.6-7).
Vn = relative fluid particle velocity resolved nonnal to the member axis.
D = the reference dimension in a plane nonnal to the fluid velocity Vn
(= Di or De from Section 4.6-7).
Note: The relative fluid particle velocity, vn, may be taken as:
Vn = Un + V Cn - U t n
where;
un + V Cn = the combined particle velocity found as the vectorial sum of the
wave particle velocity and the current velocity, normal to the
member axis.
fn = the velocity of the considered member, nonnal to the member axis
and in the direction of the combined particle velocity.
U = 0, if an absolute velocity is to be applied, i.e. neglecting the structural
velocity.
= 1, if relative velocity is to be included. May only be used for
stochastic/random wave force analyses if:
uTnlDi ~ 20
where u = =
particle velocity V C + nH/fz
Tn = first natural period of surge or sway motion
and Di = the reference diameter of a chord.
Note:
See also Section 7.3.7 for relevant damping coefficients depending on u.
4.3.3 To obtain the inertia force, the appropriate inertia coefficient (C M ) is to be taken in
combination with the cross sectional area of the geometric profile, including any required
additions for marine growth, as described in Section 4.7.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.3.3 The Morison's inertia force fonnulation is:
~inertia = P CM A Un
where;
~inertia = inertia force (per unit length) nonnal to the member axis and in the
direction of Un.
p = mass density of water (nonnally 1025 kglm 3).
CM = inertia coefficient.
A = cross sectional area of member ( =Ai or Ae from Section 4.6)
Un = fluid particle acceleration nonnal to member.
4.4 Wave Theories and Analysis Methods
4.4.1 For deterministic analyses an appropriate wave theory for the water depth, wave height
and period shall be used, based on the curves shown in Figure 4.1, after HSE [3]. For
practical purposes, an appropriate order of Dean's Stream Function or Stokes' 5th (within
its bounds of applicability) is acceptable for regular wave survival analysis.
4.4.2 For random wave (stochastic) analyses, it is recommended that the random seastate is
generated from the summation of at least 200 component Linear (Airy) waves of height
and frequency determined to match the required wave spectrum. The phasing of the
component waves should be selected at random.
The extrapolation of the wave kinematics to the free surface is most appropriately carried
out by substituting the true elevation at which the kinematics are required with one which
is at the same proportion of the still water depth as the true elevation is of the
instantaneous water depth. This can be expressed as follows:
z
,= z-S
1+ Sf d
where;
,
z = The modified coordinate to be used in particle velocity fonnulation
z = The elevation at which the kinematics are required (coordinate measured
vertically upward from the still water surface)
S = The instantaneous water level (same axis system as z)
d = The still, or undisturbed water depth (positive).
This method ensures that the kinematics at the surface are always evaluated from the
linear wave theory expressions as if they were at the still water level, Wheeler (1969) [4]
(see Figure C4.4.2 in the Commentary).
4.4.3 If breaking waves are specified according to Figure 4.1, it is recommended that the wave
period is changed to comply with the breaking limit for the specified height.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
0.030 ...-----~-----""P"'-----
The boundaries given are approximate and
. . .------r__----.. .
DEEPWATER
depend on the pUIpose of the analysis BREAKING LIMIT
beingperfonned. It is accepted that refraction Hm ax/ L =0.14
and diffiaction analysis will usually will be J....~"".,...,
based on linear theory.
0.025 - 4 1 - - - - - - I - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - , l , . . " . E : . . - - - - f - - - - - - - I
H max
~
gT as s
0.020 .......-----'-----..111~-__h"""___::~--__+-""''---___,,''""f__----__1
0.015 ....---T----,h~-__:;I~-__h~---.,..._t------t_----___1
0.010 ooI---+_........--+-I--+_ _~-----r_:S~T~O=KE=S~5_t_-__,;:><:::___-_t

OR SlEAM FUNCTION 3
0.05 .......+-.....~-+----,I#-------+--------+------f----:D""E==E""P---I
INTERMEDIATE DEPTIiWAVES WATER
WAVES
~INEARJAIRY OR STREAM FUNCTION CD

0~~~----P---------_r--------~~--------._--~----_4
o 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 d
0.10
1) None of these theories is theoretically correct at the breaking limit. Nomenclature

2) Wave theories intended for limiting height waves should be
2
referenced for waves higher than O.9Hb when stream function HmaxlgTass Dimensionless wave steepness
theory may underestimate the kinematics.
2
3) Stream function theory is satisfactory for wave loading calculations d/gTass Dimensionless relative depth
over the remaining range of regular waves. However, stream Hmax Wave height (crest to trough)
function programs may not produce a solution when applied to near Hb Breaking wave height
breaking waves or deep water waves d = Mean water depth
4) The order of stream function theory likely to be satisfactory is Tass Wave period
circled. Any solution obtained should be checked by comparison L Wave length (distance between
with the results of a higher order solution. crests)
S) The error involved in using Airy theory outside its range of g = Acceleration due to gravity
applicability is discussed in the background document.
Figure 4.1 - Range and validity of different wave theories for

regular waves, (after HSE [3])
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.5 Current
4.5.1 The current velocity and profile as specified in Section 3.6 shall be used. Interpolation
between the data points may be required and linear interpolation is recommended for
simplicity.
4.5.2 The current induced drag forces are to be determined in combination with the wave
forces. This is to be carried out by the vectorial addition of the wave and current induced
particle velocities prior to the drag force calculations.
4.5.3 The current may be reduced due to interference from the structure on the flow field of the
current, Taylor [5]. The current may be reduced as follows (see Commentary):
where;
Vc = the current velocity to be used in the hydrodynamic model, Vc should be
not taken as less than O.7Vf.
V f = the far field (undisturbed) current.
CDe = equivalent drag coefficient, as defined in 4.6.5.
De = equivalent diameter, as defined in 4.6.5.
DI = face width of leg, outside dimensions.
4.6 Leg Hydrodynamic Model
4.6.1 The hydrodynamic modeling of the jack-up leg may be carried out by utilizing 'detailed'
or 'equivalent' techniques. In both cases the geometric modeling procedure corresponds
to the respective modeling techniques described in Section 5.6.4. The hydrodynamic
properties are then found as described below:
Detailed' model
All relevant members are modeled with their own unique descriptions for the Morison
term values with the correct orientation to determine Vn and Un and the corresponding
CoD =CDjD j and CMA =CMj1tD?14, as defined in Section 4.7.
'Equivalent'model
The hydrodynamic model of a bay is comprised of one, 'equivalent' vertical tubular
located at the geometric center of the actual leg. The corresponding (horizontal) Vn and
Un are applied together with equivalent CoD = CDeDe and CMA = CMeAe, as defined in
Sections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. The model should be varied with elevation, as necessary, to
account for changes in dimensions, marine growth thickness, etc.
Note:
The drag properties of some chords will differ for flow in the direction of the wave
propagation (wave crest) and for flow back towards the source of the waves (wave
trough). Often the combined drag properties of all the chords on a leg will give a total
which is independent of the flow direction along a particular axis. When this is not the
case it is recommended that the effect is included directly in the wave-current loading
model. If this is not possible it is recommended that:
Rev 2, Jan 2002
1. Regular wave detenninistic calculations
use a value appropriate to the flow direction under consideration, noting that the flow
direction is that of the combined wave and current particle motion.
2. An average drag property is considered for random wave analyses which are solely
used to determine dynamic effects for inclusion in a final regular wave deterministic
calculation which will be made on the basis of 1. above.
3. The drag property in the direction of wave propagation is used for random wave
analyses from which the final results are obtained directly.
4.6.2 Lengths of members are normally taken as the node-to-node distance of the members in
order to account for small non-structural items (e.g. anodes, jetting lines of less than 4"
nominal diameter). Large non-structural items such as raw water pipes and ladders are to
be included in the model. Free standing conductor pipes and raw water towers are to be
considered separately from the leg hydrodynamic model.
4.6.3 The contribution of the part of the spudcan above the seabed should be investigated and
only excluded from the model if it is shown to be insignificant. In water depths greater
than 2.5 Hs or where penetrations exceed 112 the spudcan height, the effect of the spudcan
is normally insignificant.
4.6.4 For leg structural members, shielding and solidification effects should not normally be
applied in calculating wave forces. The current flow is however reduced due to
interference from the structure on the flow field, see Section 4.5.3.
4.6.5 When the hydrodynamic properties of a lattice leg are idealized by an 'equivalent' model
description the model properties may be found using the method given below:
The equivalent value of the drag coefficient, C De , times the equivalent diameter, De, to be
used in Section 4.3.2 for CDei of the bay may be chosen as:
CDe De = De ~ CDei
The equivalent value of the drag coefficient for each member, CDej, is determined from:
CDei = [sin2~i + COS2~i sin2 <Xi ]3/2 CDi D iIi
Des
where;
C Di = drag coefficient of an individual member (i) as defined in Section
4.7.
Di = reference diameter of member 'i' (including marine growth as
applicable) as defined in Section 4.7.
De = equi valent diameter of leg, suggested as ~ (L. D i \ / s
Ii = length of member 'i' node to node center.
S = length of one bay, or part of bay considered.
<Xi = angle between flow direction and member axis projected onto a
horizontal plane.
~i = angle defining the member inclination from horizontal (see Figure
4.2).
Note: L indicates summation over all members in one leg bay
Rev 2, Jan 2002
The above expression for CDei may be simplified
for horizontal and vertical members as follows:
Vertical members (e.g. chords):
Horizontal members:
FLOW DIRECTION
Figure 4.2: Flow angles appropriate to a lattice leg

(after DNV Class Note 31.5, February 1992, [6])
4.6.6 The equivalent value of the inertia coefficient, C Me , and the equivalent area, Ae, to be
used in Section 4.3.3, representing the bay may be chosen as:
CMe = equivalent inertia coefficient which may normally be taken as 2.0

when using Ae
Ae = equivalent area of leg per unit height =(LAili)/s
Ai = equivalent area of element = nn?/4
Di = reference diameter chosen as defined in Section 4.7
For a more accurate model the CMe coefficient may be determined as:
where;
2 2 2 A.I.
= [1 + (sin f3i + cos f3i sin Uj)(C Mi _ 1)] _1_1
Ae s
= the inertia coefficient of an individual member, CMi is defined in
Section 4.7 related to reference dimension D i.
Note:
For dynamic modeling the added mass of fluid per unit height of leg may be determined
as pAi(Cmi - 1) for a single member or pAe(CMe - 1) for the equivalent model, provided
that Ae is as defined above.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.7 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Leg Members
4.7.1 Hydrodynamic coefficients for leg members are given in this Section. Tubulars, brackets,
split tube and triangular chords are considered. Hydrodynamic coefficients including
directional dependence are given together with a fixed reference diameter Di. No other
diameter should be used unless the coefficients are scaled accordingly. Unless better
information is available for the computation of wave and current forces, the values of
drag and inertia coefficients applicable to Morison's equation should be obtained from
this Section.
4.7.2 Recommended values for hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars «1.5m diameter) are
given in Table 4.3 based on the data discussed in the commentary.
I
Surface condition CDi CMi
Smooth 0.65 2.0
Rough } See Note

1.00 1.8
Table 4.3: Base hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars
Note: The smooth values will normally apply above MWL + 2m and the rough values
below MWL + 2m, where MWL is as defined in Section 3.7.2. If the jack-up has
operated in deeper water and the fouled legs are not cleaned the surface should be taken
as rough for wave loads above MWL + 2m. See Commentary.
4.7.3 When applicable, marine growth is to be included in the hydrodynamic model by adding
the appropriate marine growth thickness, to, on the boundary of each individual member
below MWL + 2m where MWL is as defined in Section 3.7.2 i.e. for a tubular Di =
DoriginaI + 2tm. Site specific data for marine growth is preferred (see Section 3.9). If such
data are not available all members below MWL + 2m shall be considered to have a
marine growth thickness tm = 12.5 mm (i.e. total of 25 mm across the diameter of a
tubular member). Marine growth on the teeth of elevating racks and protruding guided
surfaces of chords may normally be ignored.
The effects of marine growth may be ignored if anti-fouling, cleaning or other means are
applied, however the surface roughness is still to be taken into account (see
Commentary).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.7.4 The in-line force due to gussets in any vertical plane shall be determined using a drag
coefficient:
C Di =2.0
applied together with the projected area of the gusset visible in the flow direction, unless
model test data shows otherwise. This drag coefficient may be applied together with a
reference diameter Di and corresponding length Ii chosen such that their product equals
the plane area, A = Dili and Di = Ii (see Figure 4.3). In the equivalent model of Section
4.6 the gussets may then be treated as a horizontal element of length Ii , with its axis in
the plane of the gusset. C Mi should be taken as 1.0 and marine growth may be ignored.
tVisible
Part
Figure 4.3: Gusset plates

Rev 2, Jan 2002
4.7.5 For non-tubular geometries (e.g. leg chords) the appropriate hydrodynamic coefficients
may, in lieu of more detailed information, be taken in accordance with Figures 4.4 or 4.5
and corresponding formulas, as appropriate.
Ci
t)
WlDj= 1.4
~ 2.5
l5
E 2.. 0 ......... ~ ..
~
1.5
W/Dj =1.1
e
t)
~
..:: ROUGH
CI 1.0
0.5 SMOOTH
0.0 +------,------,.----1
30 60 90
ANGLE e
Figure 4.4: Split tube chord and typical values for Cm
For a split tube chord as shown in Figure 4.4, the drag coefficient CDi related to the
reference dimension D j = D+2tm, the diameter of the tubular including marine growth as
in Section 4.7.3, maybe taken as:
where;
8 = Angle in degrees, see Figure 4.4
Coo = The drag coefficient for a tubular with appropriate roughness, see Section 4.7.2.
(Coo = 1.0 below MWL+2m and Coo =0.65 above MWL+2m.)
CD! = The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack (8 = 90°), related to projected
diameter, W. COl is given by:
1.8 W/D j <1.2

C Ol = { l.4+~(W/Dj) 1.2 < W ID j <1.8
2.0 1.8 < W/Dj
The inertia coefficient CMj = 2.0, related to the equivalent volume nD j 2/4 per unit length
of member, may be applied for all heading angles and any roughness.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Q
0
w ~ 2.5
W!D=1.07
~ 2.0
o 1.5
u
D ~ 1.0
~ 0.5
O~--'----.---.----r---r-~
o 30 60 90 120 150 180
ANGLES
Figure 4.5: Triangular chord and typical values of C.Qi.
For a triangular chord as shown in Figure 4.5, the drag coefficient CDi related to the
reference dimension Di =D, the backplate width, may be taken as:
CDi =CDprCS) Dpr(S) I Di
where the drag coefficient related to the projected diameter, C Dpn is determined from:
1.70 S = 0°
1.95 S = 90°
CDpr = 1.40 S = 105°
1.65 S =180°-So
2.00 S =180°
Linear interpolation is to be applied for intermediate headings. The projected diameter,

Dpr(S), may be determined from:
DCOS(S) 0 < S < So
Dpr(S) = W sin(S) + 0.5Dlcos(S)1 So < 8 < 180 - So
{ Dlcos(S)1 ; 180- 8 0 <8<180
The angle So, where half the rackplate is hidden, 8 0 =tan- 1(D/(2W».
The inertia coefficient CMi = 2.0 (as for a flat plate), related to the equivalent volume of
nDi2/4 per unit length of member, may be applied for all headings and any roughness.
4.7.6 Shapes, combinations of shapes or closely grouped non-structural items which do not
readily fall into the above categories should be assessed from relevant literature
(references to be provided) and/or appropriate interpretation of (model) tests. The model
tests should consider possible roughness, Keulegan-Carpenter and Reynolds number
dependence.
4.8 Other Considerations
Local load effects will normally have been addressed at the design stage. Should the
wind or current and/or wave height parameters at the location exceed those applicable at
the design stage further consideration may be required. The Commentary provides
further details and references to calculation methods.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - CALCULATION METHODS HYDRODYNAMICS
AND WIND FORCES
AWi = Projected area of the block considered in wind computations.

A = Cross sectional area of member.
Ae = Equivalent area of leg per unit heifht =(L Ai Ii )/s.
Ai = Equivalent area of element = 1t Di 14.
Co = Drag coefficient.
COe = Equi valent drag coefficient.
CDi = Drag coefficient of an individual member, related to D i.
Coo = The drag coefficient for chord at direction e =0°.
COl The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack, e = 90°.
COpr = The drag coefficient related to the projected diameter.
CM = Inertia coefficient.
C Me = Equi valent inertia coefficient.
C Mi = Inertia coefficient of a member, related to D i.
Ch = Height coefficient for wind.
Cs = Shape coefficient for wind related to projected area.
d = The mean, undisturbed water depth (positive).
D = Member diameter or backplate width.
De = Equivalent diameter of leg.
Di = Reference dimension of individual leg members.
DI = Face width of leg, outside dimensions.
Dpr = The projected diameter.
FWi = Wind force for block i.
Hs = The effective significant wave height (Section 5.5.1.3).
Ii = Length of member 'i' node to node center.
Pi = Wind pressure at the center of block i.
tn = Velocity of the considered member, normal to the member axis and in the
direction of the combined particle velocity.
s = Length of one bay, or part of bay considered.
tm = Marine growth thickness.
Tn = First natural period of sway motion.
Tz = The zero-upcrossing period associated with Hs.
u = Wave particle velocity.
Un = Wave (only) particle velocity normal to the member.
Un = Wave particle acceleration normal to the member.
Vn = Total (relative) flow velocity normal to the member.
Ven = Current velocity to be used in the hydrodynamic model, normal to member.
Vf = Far field (undisturbed) current.
V ref = One minute sustained wind velocity at elevation 'Zref.
Vz = Wind velocity at elevation Z.
W = Dimension from backplate to pitch point of triangular chord or dimension from
root of one rack to tip of other rack of split-tubular chord.
z = Coordinate measured vertically upward from the mean water surface.
z' = Modified coordinate to be used in particle velocity formulation.
Z = Elevation measured from the mean water surface.
'Zref = Reference elevation for wind speed.
ex = Indicator for relative velocity, 0 or 1.
<Xi = Angle defining flow direction relative to member.
f3i = Angle defining the member inclination.
LWdrao b
= Drag force per unit length.
LWinertia = Inertia force per unit length.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
4 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - CALCULATION :METHODS HYDRODYNAMICS
AND WIND FORCES (Continued)
sp = The instantaneous water surface elevation (same axis system as z).

= Mass density of water or air.
8 = Angle in degrees of water particle velocity relative to the chord orientation.
80 = =
Angle at which half rackplate of Do chord is hidden tan- l (D/(2W»
A = Wave length.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
5 CALCULATION METHODS - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
5.1 General Conditions
5.1.1 Structural calculations should be carried out in accordance with the following sections.
5.1.2 A range of environmental approach directions and storm water levels should be
considered, such that the most onerous (i.e. that leading to the extreme maximum and/or
minimum loading) is determined for each assessment check {strength of each major type
of element (chord, brace, etc.), overturning stability, foundation capacity, horizontal
deflections, holding system, etc.}.
5.1.3 In deterministic calculations the most critical wave phase position(s) should be
considered for each case identified under 5.1.2. Normally the phase giving maximum
base shear and/or overturning moment will be found critical for overturning, leeward leg
stresses, leeward leg foundations and windward leg foundations.
5.1.4 For fatigue calculations it may be necessary to determine the load or stress ranges, and
hence other phase positions may also need to be considered.
5.2 Seabed Reaction Point
For independent leg jack-up units, the reaction point for horizontal and vertical loads at
each footing shall be situated on the geometric vertical axis of the leglspudcan, at a
distance above the spudcan tip equivalent to:
a) Half the maximum predicted penetration (when spudcan is partially penetrated), or
b) Half the height of the spudcan (when the spudcan is fully, more than fully penetrated).
If detailed information exists regarding the soils and spudcan the position of the reaction
point may be calculated. (Brekke et al, [7])
5.3 Foundation Fixity
5.3.1 For analyses of an independent leg jack-up unit under extreme storm conditions the
foundations may normally be assumed to behave as pin joints, and so are unable to
sustain a bending moment. Analysis and practical experience suggest that this may be a
I
conservative approach for bending moment in the upper parts of the leg in way of the
lower guides.
5.3.2 In cases where the inclusion of rotational foundation fixity is justified and is included in
the structural analysis, it is essential that the nonlinear soil-structure interaction effects are
properly taken into account. The model should include the interaction of rotational,
lateral and vertical soil forces.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
5.3.3 Methods of establishing the degree of fixity of rotational restraint, or fixity, at the
footings are discussed further in Section 6.3.4 and the Commentary to Section 6. Upper
or lower bound values should be considered as appropriate for the areas of the structure
under consideration.
5.3.4 For checking the spudcans, the leg-to-can connection and the lower parts of the leg,
appropriate calculations considering soil-structure interaction shall be carried out to
determine the upper bound can moment. These areas may be checked assuming that a
percentage of the maximum storm leg moment at the lower guide (derived assuming a
pinned footing) is applied to the spudcan together with the associated horizontal and
vertical loads. This percentage would normally be not less than 50%. For such
simplified checks the loading on the spudcan may be modeled assuming that the soil is
linear-elastic and incapable of taking tension.
5.4 Leg Inclination
The effects of initial leg inclination should be considered. Leg inclination may occur due
to leg-hull clearances and the hull inclination permitted by the operating manual. Thus
the total horizontal offset due to leg inclination, 0,., may be determined as:
where;
OT =Total horizontal offset of leg base with respect to hull.
0 1 =Offset due to leg-hull clearances.
O2 =Offset due to maximum hull inclination permitted by the operating manual.
If detailed information is not available, OT should be taken as 0.5% of the leg length
below the lower guide.
The effects of leg inclination need be accounted for only in structural strength checks.
This will normally be accomplished by increasing the effective moment in the leg at the
lower guide by an amount equal to the offset OT times the factored vertical reaction at the
leg base due to dead, live, environmental, inertial and p-~ loads.
5.5 p-~ Effects
5.5.1 The p-~ Effect occurs because the jack-up is a relatively flexible structure and is subject
to lateral displacement of the hull (sidesway) under the action of environmental loads. As
a result of the hull translation the line of action of the vertical spudcan reaction no longer
passes through the centroid of the leg at the level of the hull. Consequently the leg
moments at the level of the hull are increased over those arising from a linear quasi-
Rev 2, Jan 2002
static analysis by an amount equal to the individual leg load P times the hull translation,
D.
This additional moment will cause additional deflection over that predicted by standard
linear-elastic theory. The increased deflection is a function of the ratio of the applied
axial load to the Euler load.
Furthennore the shift in the hull center of gravity due to the hull translation will increase
the overturning moment (or decrease the righting moment). Consequently the axial loads
in the leeward leg(s) will increase and the axial loads in the windward leg(s) will reduce.
The consequences of the above are:
a) Increased hull deflections (which will increase the linear-elastic P-8 moments).
b) A redistribution of base shears (in global axes) such that the increase in lower guide
moment is reduced in the leeward leg(s) and increased in the windward leg(s).
5.5.2 An analysis using a standard linear elastic (small displacement) finite element program
will not allow for these effects. The following Sections describe techniques which may
be used to account for the P-MEuler effects. The large displacement methods are the
most accurate, but require more rigorous analysis. The geometric stiffness methods are
simpler and generally of sufficient accuracy.
5.5.3 Large displacement methods;
These methods are part of a number of finite element (F.E.) programs. In such methods
the non-linear (large-displacement) solution is obtained by applying the load in
increments and iteratively generating the stiffness matrix for the next load increment from
the deflected shape (nodal deflections) of the previous increment. Some F.E. programs
offer an intermediate solution in which the deflected geometry from an initial linear-
elastic solution is used as the input to the final 'corrected' solution.
5.5.4 Geometric stiffness methods,·
5.5.4.1 These methods are also available within a number of F.E. programs. A linear correction
is made to the element stiffness matrix based on the axial load present in the element.
Iteration is also required for this solution procedure.
5.5.4.2 A simplified geometric stiffness approach allows incorporation of P-L\ effects in a

standard linear-elastic F.E. program without recourse to iteration (refer to Commentary
for derivation). In this approach a correction tenn is introduced into the global stiffness
matrix prior to analysis. When the analysis is complete the hull deflections, leg axial
loads and leg bending moments will include the P-L\ effects. The derivation of the
method is described in appendix C5.A of the Commentary.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
The correction term is: -PgIL
where;
Pg = Total effective gravity load on legs at hull. This includes the hull weight
and weight of the legs above the hull.
L = The distance from the spudcan reaction point to the hull vertical center of
gravity.
This single (negative) value is incorporated into the global stiffness matrix by attaching a
pair of orthogonal horizontal translational earthed spring elements to a node representing
the hull center of gravity and entering the negative value for each of the spring constants.
Some F.E. packages allow direct matrix manipulation.
The negative stiffness term at the hull will produce an additional lateral force at the hull
proportional to the structural deflection. The resulting (additional) base overturning
moment will be equal to the gravity load times the hull displacement.
The additional lateral load (due to the negative stiffness term) will cause an over-
prediction of the base shear (in global axes). Typically this is not critical. However, the
base shear at each leg can be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the
total base shear and the shear due to the applied loads (both in global axes) divided by the
number of legs.
5.5.4.3 An alternative geometric stiffness approach is given below. Here the P-~ effects are
determined by amplifying the linear-elastic displacement (excluding P-~) as follows:
where;
~ =the approximate displacement including P-~.

8s = the linear-elastic first order hull displacement.
P = the average axial load in the leg at the hull (i.e. the total leg load at the hull
divided by the number of legs).
PE = Euler buckling load of an individual leg.(See Section 7.3.5 for general
formulation).
Corrections can then be made to a global linear-elastic solution by manually adding P-~
moments to the results. The P-~ moments are computed using the amplified deflection,
~, and P'S adjusted to account for this. (This approach is not strictly valid because it
ignores the fact that the deflection of all the legs at the hull must be approximately equal.
The imposition of this constraint will lead to a redistribution of the global base shear
between the legs.) Ignoring the redistribution will generally be conservative for leeward
leges) and their foundation loads and non- conservative for windward leges) and their
foundation loads.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
5.6 Structural Modeling
5.6.1 Introduction
It is important that the structural model accurately reflects the complex mechanism of the
jack-up. For most jack-up configurations the load distribution at the leg-hull interface is
not amenable to manual calculation, therefore, it is necessary to develop a Finite Element
(F.E.) computer model. A number of different modeling techniques can be used to depict
the jack-up structure. The recommended techniques are summarized below and their
applicability and limitations are discussed in more detail in Section 5.6.3.
a) Fully detailed model of legs and hull/leg connections with detailed or representative
stiffness model of hull and spudcan.
b) Simplified lower legs and spudcans, detailed upper legs and hull/leg connections with
detailed or representative stiffness model of hull.
c) Equivalent stiffness model of legs and spudcans, equivalent hulllleg connection

springs and representative beam-element hull grillage.
d) Detailed leg (or leg section) and hull/leg connection model.
Section 5.6.3 and Table 5.1 outline the limitations of the various modeling techniques and
should be referenced to ensure that the selected models address all aspects required for a
specific assessment.
5.6.2 General Considerations
In the elevated condition the most heavily loaded portion of the leg is normally between
the upper and lower guides and in way of the lower guide. The stress levels in this area
depend on the design concept of the jack-up. A specific jack-up design concept can be
described by the combination of the following components (see Commentary Figure
C5.5):
a) With or without fixation system,
b) Fixed or floating jacking system,
c) Opposed or unopposed pinions.
In units having fixation systems the transfer of moment between the leg and the hull is
largely by means of a couple due to vertical loads carried from the chord into the fixation
or jacking system.
Where a fixed or floating jacking system is fitted (and there is no fixation system) the
transfer of moment between the leg and the hull is partly by means of a couple due to
horizontal loads carried from the chords into the upper and lower guides. In this case and
when the chord/guide contact occurs between bracing nodes significant local chord
bending moments are normal.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
If the jacking system has unopposed pinions local chord moments will arise due to:
the horizontal pinion load component (due to the pressure angle of the
rack/pinion).
the vertical pinion load component acting at an offset from the chord neutral axis.
The modeling of the various design aspects is critical and recommended modeling
techniques are outlined in the following sections. The Commentary provides detailed
information regarding the combination of the above three components for current jack-up
units.
5.6.3 Applicability and Limitations
It is most desirable to fully model the jack-up when assessing its structural strength. Very
often assumptions and simplifications such as equivalent hull, equivalent leg, etc. will be
made in the process of building the model. In view of this, various levels of modeling
described in a) through d) below may be used. It should be noted that some of these
methods may have limitations with respect to the accuracy of assessing the structural
adequacy of a jack-up and when simplified models, such as those described in (c) and (d)
are used it may be appropriate to calibrate against a more detailed model.
a) Fully detailed 3-leg model

The model consists of 'detailed legs', hull, hulllleg connections and spudcans modeled
in accordance with 5.6.4(a),5.6.5, 5.6.6 and 5.6.7, respectively. The results from this
model can be used to examine the preload requirements, overturning resistance, leg
strength and the adequacy of the jacking system or fixation system.
b) Combination leg 3-leg model

The model consists of a combination of 'detailed leg' for the upper portion of legs and
'equivalent leg' for the lower portion of the legs modeled in accordance with 5.6.4.
The hull, hulllleg connections and spudcans are modeled in accordance with 5.6.5,
5.6.6 and 5.6.7 respectively. The results from this model can be used to examine the
preload requirements, overturning resistance, leg strength and the adequacy of the
jacking system or fixation system.
c) Equivalent 3-stick-leg model

The model consists of 'equivalent legs' modeled in accordance with 5.6.4(b), hull
structure modeled using beam elements in accordance with 5.6.5, leg to hull
connections modeled in accordance with 5.6.6 and spudcans modeled as a stiff or
rigid extension to the equivalent leg. The results from this model can be used to
examine the preload requirements and overturning resistance. This model may also
used to obtain the reactions at the spudcan or internal forces and moments in the leg at
the vicinity of lower guide for application to the 'detailed leg' and hulllleg model (d)
which should be used to assess the strength of the leg in the area between lower and
upper guides.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
d) Single detailed leg model
The model consists of a 'detailed leg' or a portion of a 'detailed leg' modeled in
accordance with 5.6.4(a), the hulllleg connection modeled in accordance with 5.6.6
and, when required, the spudcan modeled in accordance with Section 5.6.7. This
model is to be used in conjunction with the reactions at the spudcan or the forces and
moments in the vicinity of lower guide obtained from Model (c). The results from
this model can be used to examine the leg strength and the adequacy of the jacking
system or the fixation system.
Applicability (see Note 1)

I IT ill IV V VI vn
Global Leg Pinion! Hull
Model Global Overturning Foundation Leg Member Fixation Element
Type Loads Checks Checks Loads Loads System Loads Loads
a y Y Y Y Y Y 2
b Y Y Y Y Y Y 2
c y Y Y Y - - -
d - - - - y y -
Legend:
Y = Applicable
= Not applicable
Notes:
1. Large displacement and dynamic effects to be included where appropriate.
2. VIT, hull stresses will only be available from more complex hull models.
Table 5.1 - Applicability of the suggested models
5.6.4 Modeling the Leg
The leg can be modeled as a 'detailed leg', an 'equivalent leg' or a combination of the two.
The 'detailed leg' model consists of all structural members such as chords, horizontal,
diagonal and internal braces of the leg structure and the spudcan (if required). The
'equivalent leg' model consists of a series of colinear beam elements (stick model)
simulating the complete leg structure. It is recommended that the leg model(s) be
generated in accordance with the following:
a) 'Detailed Leg' Model

The coordinates of the joints for this model are to be defined by the intersection of the
chord and brace centerlines. For joints where there is more than one brace, it is
unlikely that there will be one (1) common point of intersection between the braces
and chord. In this instance, it is usually sufficient to choose an intermediate point
between the chordlbrace centerline intersections. Gusset plates normally need not be
included in the structural leg model, however their effects may be taken into account
in the calculation of member and joint strength checks.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
b) 'Equivalent Leg' Model
The leg structure can be simulated by a series of colinear beams with the equivalent
cross sectional properties calculated using the formulas indicated in Figure 5.1 or
derived from the application of suitable 'unit' load cases (see Commentary C5.5) to
the 'Detailed Leg' model described in 5.6.4 (a). Where such a model is used, detailed
stresses, pinion loads, etc. will be derived either directly or indirectly from a 'detailed
model'.
c) 'Combination Leg' model

To facilitate obtaining detailed stress, pinion loads, etc. directly, a 'detailed leg' model
can be generated covering the region between the guides, and extending at least 4
bays below and, where available, at least 4 bays above this region. The remainder is
then modeled as an 'equivalent leg'. Care is required to ensure an appropriate
interface and consistency of boundary conditions at the connections. The 'detailed
leg'/'equivalent leg' connection should be modeled so that the plane of connection
remains a plane after the leg is bent.
Note:
The leg stiffness used in the overall response analysis may account for a contribution
from a portion of the rack tooth material. Unless detailed calculations indicate otherwise,
the assumed effective area of the rack teeth should not exceed 10% of their maximum
cross sectional area. When checking the capacity of the chords the chord properties
should be determined discounting the rack teeth.
5.6.5 Modeling the Hull
The hull structure should be modeled so that the loads can be correctly transferred to the
legs and the hull flexibility is represented accurately. Recommended methods are given
below:
a) Detailed Hull Model

The model can be generated using plate elements in which appropriate directional
modeling of the effect of the stiffeners on the plates should be included. The
elements should be capable of carrying in-plane and, where applicable, out-of plane
loads.
b) Equivalent Hull Model

Alternatively, the hull can be modeled by using a grillage of beams. Deck, bottom,
side shell and bulkheads can be used to construct the grillage. The properties of the
beam can be calculated based on the depth of the bulkheads, side-shell and the
'effective width' of the deck and bottom plating. Attention should be paid to the in-
plane and torsional properties due to the continuity of the deck and bottom structures.
5.6.6 Modeling the HulllLeg Connection
The hulllleg connection modeling is of extreme importance to the analysis since it

controls the distribution of leg bending moments and shears carried between the upper
and lower guide structures and the jacking or fixation system. It is therefore necessary
that these systems are properly modeled in terms of stiffness, orientation and clearance.
For the 'Equivalent 3-stick-Ieg model'
Rev 2, Jan 2002
a simplified derivation of the equivalent leg-hull connection stiffness may be applicable.
For jack-ups with a fixation system, the leg bending moment will be shared by the upper
and lower guides, the jacking and the fixation systems. Normally the leg bending
moment and axial force due to environmental loading are resisted largely by the fixation
system because of its high rigidity. Depending on the specified method of operation, the
stiffnesses, the initial clearances and the magnitude of the applied loading a portion of the
environmental leg loading may be resisted by the jacking system and the guide structures.
Typical shear force and bending moment diagrams for this configuration are shown in
Figure 5.2.
For jack-ups without a fixation system, the leg bending moment will be shared by the
jacking system and guide structure. For a fixed jacking system, the distribution of leg
moment carried between the jacking system and guide structure mainly depends on the
stiffness of the jacking pinions. Typical shear force and bending moment diagrams for
this design are shown in Figures 5.3 and 5.4.
For a floating jacking system, the distribution of leg bending moment carried between the
jacking system and guide structure depends on the combined stiffness of the shock pads
and pinions. Typical shear force and bending moment diagrams for this design are shown
in Figure 5.5.
The hull/leg connection should be modeled considering the effects of guide and support
system clearances, wear, construction tolerances and backlash (within the gear-train and
between the drive pinion and the rack).
The following techniques are recommended for modeling hull/leg connections (specific
data for the various parts of the structure may be available from the designers data
package):
Detailed modeling
a) Upper and Lower Guides - The guide structures should be modeled to restrain the
chord member horizontally only in directions in which guide contact occurs. The
upper and lower guides may be considered to be relatively stiff with respect to the
adjacent structure, such as jackcase, etc. The nominal lower guide position relative to
the leg may be derived using the sum of leg penetration, water depth and airgap. It is
however recommended that at least two positions are covered when assessing leg
strength: one at a node and the other at the midspan. This is to allow for
uncertainties in the prediction of leg penetration and possible differences in
penetration between the legs.
The finite lengths of the guides may be included in the modeling by means of a
number of discrete restraint springs/connections to the hull. Care is required to ensure
that such restraints carry loads only in directions/senses in which they can act.
Alternatively the results from analyses ignoring the guide length may be corrected, if
necessary, by
Rev 2, Jan 2002
modification of the local bending moment diagram to allow for the proper distribution
of guide reaction, see Figure 5.6.
b) Jacking Pinions - The jacking pinions should be modeled based on the pinion stiffness
specified by the manufacturer and should be modeled so that the pinions can resist
vertical and the corresponding horizontal forces. A linear spring or cantilever beam
can be used to simulate the jacking pinion. The force required to deflect the free end
of the cantilever beam a unit distance should be equal to the jacking pinion stiffness
specified by the manufacturer. The offset of the pinion/rack contact point from the
chord neutral axis should be incorporated in the model.
c) Fixation System - The fixation system should be modeled to resist both vertical and
horizontal forces based on the stiffness of the vertical and horizontal supports and on
the relative location of their associated foundations. It is important that the model can
simulate the local moment capacity of the fixation system arising from its finite size
and the number and location of the supports.
d) Shock Pad - Floating jacking systems generally have two sets of shock pads at each
jackcase, one located at the top and the other at the bottom of the jackhouse.
Alternatively shock pads may be provided for each pinion. The jacking system is free
to move up or down until it contacts the upper or lower shock pad. In the elevated
condition, the jacking system is in contact with the upper shock pad and in the transit
condition it is in contact with the lower shock pad. The stiffness of the shock pad
should be based on the manufacturer's data and the shock pad should be modeled to
resist vertical force only. It should also be noted that the shock pad stiffness
characteristics may be nonlinear.
e) Jackcase and associated bracing - The jackcase and associated bracing should be
modeled based on the actual stiffness since it has direct impact on the horizontal
forces that the upper guide can resist.
Note:
Where the hull is not modeled it is normally suitable to earth the base of the jackcase and
associated bracing, the foundations of the fixation system and the lower guide structures
at their connections to the hull.
Simple modeling
f) For applications such as those described in Section 5.6.3 c) (Equivalent 3-stick-Ieg

model) a simplified representation of the hull to leg connection is required. In this
instance the rotational stiffness may be represented by rotational springs and, where
applicable, horizontal and vertical stiffnesses by linear springs. Where these are
derived from a more detailed modeling, as described above, it is important that
suitable loading levels (typical of the cases to be analyzed) are selected so that the
effects of clearances, etc. do not dominate the result. Hand calculations may also be
applicable. See Section C5.5 in the Commentary.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
5.6.7 Modeling the Spudcan
When modeling the spudcan, rigid beam elements are considered sufficient to achieve an
accurate load transfer of the seabed reaction into the leg chords and bracing in the area
between upper and lower guides. It should be noted that, due to the sudden change in
stiffness, rigid beams can cause artificially high stresses at the leg to spudcan
connections. Hence the modeling and selection of element type should be carefully
considered when an accurate calculation of chord stresses is required in this area.
For a strength analysis of the spudcan and its connections to the leg it may be appropriate
to develop a separate detailed model with appropriate boundary conditions.
5.7 Load Application
The loads and load effects to be included in the analysis, with their designators used in
Section 8 in ( ), comprise:
a) Self weight and non-varying loads (0), variable and drilling loads (L).
b) Wind loads (E).
c) Hydrodynamic wave-current loads (E).
d) Inertial loads due to dynamic response (On).
e) Second order effects (associated with D,L,E & Dn).
These are discussed in tum below.
5.7.1 Self weight. variable and drilling loads
Depending on the initial positions of the legs with respect to guide clearances, and the
operation of the jacking and fixation systems (if fitted), the distributed hull loading and
stiffness will lead to hull sagging which may impose bending moments on the legs which
remain present for the remainder of the period on location. Such moments should be
considered in the site assessment analyses, and will be larger in shallow waters where the
leg extension below the hull is small and consequently the leg bending stiffness is higher.
To correctly capture these effects the hull loads should be applied to the model in such a
manner as to represent their correct vertical and horizontal distribution. If dynamic
analyses are to be performed all weights should be represented by means of masses
together with vertical gravitational acceleration. It is generally appropriate to apply these
masses by means of factored element self-weight with additional correction masses
applied as necessary to obtain the correct total mass and center of gravity. Alternatively,
it may be sufficient to apply point masses at the node points of the model.
It is noted that an F.E. model with distributed hull stiffness and loading will incorporate
hull sag effects if the hull and variable gravity loading is 'turned on' with the unit defined
in its initially undeflected shape at the operating airgap. It should be
Rev 2, Jan 2002
verified that the amount of hull sag moment arising is applicable, given the operating
procedures pertaining to the unit. It may be necessary to apply corrections to the final
results for any discrepancies in the hull sag induced loadings. Further guidance is given
in Section 5.3.3 of the Commentary.
5.7.2 Wind loads
The wind loading on the legs above and below the hull may be applied as distributed or
nodal loads. Where nodal loads are used a sufficient number of loads should be applied
to reflect the distributed nature of the loading and it should be ensured that the correct
total shear and overturning moment is applied on each leg. Similarly the wind loading on
the hull and associated structure may be applied as distributed or nodal loads. The
application should ensure the correct total shear and overturning moment is applied to the
hull.
5.7.3 Hydrodynamic wave-current loads
The wave-current loading on the leg and spudcan structures above the mudline may be
applied as distributed or nodal loads. Where nodal loads are used the application should
ensure the correct total shear and overturning moment on each leg, and reflect the
distributed nature of the loading.
5.7.4 Inertial loads due to dynamic response
When the dynamic approach (see Section 7) leads to the explicit determination of an
inertial loadset, this should be applied to the hull model. In simpler dynamic approaches
the inertial load may be represented by a single lateral point loading acting at the hull
center of gravity, or by a number of point loads applied to other parts of the hull having
the same line of action. In more complex approaches a more complete distributed load
vector may be applied to the hull and legs.
5.7.5 Second order effects
Methods for including P-Li effects are described in Section 5.5.

-.
'"I1
~
!=i
en
-
VI
FIG 5.1.a
EQUIVALENT SHEAR AREA FOR TWO DIMENSIONAL LATTICE STRUCTURES
ISTRUC rURE EQUIVALENT SHEAR AREA.
. '.
FIG.S.1.b
~_. - - - -
EQUIVALENT SECTION PROPERT ES OF 3-~ LA"TICE LEGS
LEG. EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES.
Z
i
~
4~ ~
,
~
;;~
(I+v) sh 2 Ar.1 A"3 ACi '"'0
AQi =
A. (i "\ / \~i AQy= AQz- -fAOi ~
) h
d3
--+--
53
A.
'<.'
I
I
, l4.
~.
2AO 6AC I
Y Iy .. IZ-"I2 ACi h 2
I '< ~
~~ (I+V) sh 2 I --h --~9 Ir .. "I~ AQi h 2 "'I
V:l
mAC,
A Qi =
" fN 3L,,)
~.
C~~KH3
B. At>
d' h'
+ 8Av - NAC ""3 -i=l,N Z ~
A-4 ACi ~
(')
N 'NO OF ACTIVE BAYS I I Oi AQy. AQz == 2 AOi 'S;

(')
5
, ~
B. h I
I
I Y
Iy'" Iz .. ACi h 2 ;x:..
~
I ,
(l+v~ sh 2 IT-AQi h 2
~]
AQi =
C. ---_ ....-
AACi ~
d3 53
I'.. 0' /. 4Ao 12AC

A-4 ACi
~
V <Q..
/ ',AQi AQy_ AQz .. 2 AOi
~~ (l+v) sh 2 c. '" '" Iyatlz =ACi h2 ~
~ ...~ ~
l
AQi=
~~~~l]
;:::,;
D. d 3
h S3 3 " IT- AQj h 2 ~~
-+--+-- "
'.!" .- '
~~
2Ao 2 Av 6 AC
'~/ J'V~
i:i'~
I V'
s ,,..!,2 ,
;::$"I:::j
~~
I ,
48 (l+v)Ia
AQi= <:::> ....
E. 3.) ACi MAY HAVE TAKEN AS THE CHORD AREA
N~
I II
'....!.a I h Sl (1+.!!
s Ie
!.si. ) 'Iid INCLUDING A CONTRIBlITION FROM THE
I
RACK TEETH. (SEE NOTE TO SECfION 5.6.4.)
4.) THE FORMill.AE WILL BE INACCURATE IF SIGNIFICANT

OFFSETS EXIST BETWEEN BRACE WORK POINTS.
Note: l.)AQi IS DETERMINED FROM 5.1a.
5.) FOR BRACING ACCORDING TO 5.1.a.C THE EQUIVALENT
2.) THE STIFFNESS PROPERTIES ARE THE SAME FOR BEAM END ROTATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCURATE; lHIS
ALL DIRECTIONS UNLESS THE CHORDS HAVE
DIFFERENT AREAS.
MAY BE IMPORTANT IF THIS MODELLING IS USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH ROTATIONAL FOUNDATION STIFFNESS.
o?
~
~
Rev 2, Jan 2002
;;;:
2
I-
<.I
<f.
.... I-
Z
Z
UI III
a: :Ii
a:
::::I
0
u :&
<'
'"
:>
<C
Z
15
!: z:
IU
0 II
~ "-
UI a:
;;;I ..:
Q 1&1
a: :r::
~
<C
~
...
III
CIJ Z
1
II
I I
I J
J I
'\
Figure 5.2: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups with a fixation system
Rev 2, Jan 2002
z
0
j:
(.)
<
..... I-
';I: z:
'"
II:
II:
Ia.I
:10
~ 0
(.) ::E
UI <:)
;;0. Z
0« is
~ Z ;
ILl ".'" 1
0 10
i
t- "".
W II::
;;)
Q
It
'"
Ia.I
:t:
en
c:t J-
IU
......... Z
W
;
%
OR Z
I·
Ii II I I II ~
;;
z
w
m
11 11\
Go.
o
Ia.I
<r)
oGo.
a.
o
Figure 5.3: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups without a fixation system and having
a fixed jacking system with opposed pinions
Rev 2, Jan 2002
z
0
j:
C)
0(
l- I-
z: Z
lit III
II:: 5!
II:: 0
:) :!
IJ
w 0
z:
>
< is
Z ",'"
~ ",'"
C
~
'",-ID
III a:
:::J
0 ....C
a: l:
I/)
<
III
%
...
II
Z
""
II II • J i
a fixed jacking system with unopposed pinions
Rev 2, Jan 2002
z:
0
i=
0
c(
~ I-
Z
Ilol
=
II.!
lie :r
til: 0
= :IE
(,,)
1&1
:0-
"
Z
« C
z
~ III
0
I-
III
"-
mD~. i .
a:
101
::!.- I
;
I
=
II:
11.1
::t:
!
<£ '"
l-
..,x:
III
11.1
Z
II
II II
:LI
~
...0
CIJ
=
«
w
I~
Q l:
<C tI)
a.
z J:
o '-I" It>
o
f"l ~ IH
I ill
% 1
#
j: I III II . '
C
o I I I I : 1....1--'-.....r.--,........~ , !B
~
D-
IU
j ,
,
i
I I I I I I , I , I , . '11-r-t-"-l..Ll......l..l.J~..LU..l..l-.LJ-L-kJ.-*
11
CIJ
C'
o
~
u
..,c ~,
',:.~ ~~ ..
.'" .
KKKKKKkJ<J<J< J<J<Kl<KKKKKKl<J<KJ<Kl<K
i'! ~
I
I
... ,:
.'
,,'
I
lit
..
.....'-.";
Z 1&1
ez o
5
;:
Q
:u
" II:
III
~
en
o
iL
II.
....
o
a floating jacking system
Rev 2, Jan 2002
2Pfh
Bending of chord member

may be derived by
simple beam element
s analysis
2P/h
Bending of chord member

may be derived by
p h simple beam element
analysis
S' lified distribution

Guide positions "!fguide reactions
Figure 5.6: Correction of point supported guide model for finite guide length
(AfterDNV Class Note 31.5,1992 [6])
Rev 2, Jan 2002
5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS· STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
A = Equivalent axial area of a leg for stiffness calculations.

ACi = Area of chord including a contribution from the rack teeth (see note to Section
5.6.4.)
AD = Axial area of an inclined brace.
AQi = Equivalent shear area of a leg face.
AQy = Equivalent shear area of a leg in y direction.
AQz = Equivalent shear area of a leg in z direction.
Av = Axial area of a brace perpendicular to the chords.
d = Length of inclined brace or face to face distance between chords for lattice
structures without inclined braces.
D = Self weight and non-varying loads.
Dn = Inertial loads due to Dynamic response.
E = Environmental loads.
h = Distance between chord centroids.
h = Length of guide.
IB = Second moment of area of 'brace'.
~ = Second moment of area of longitudinal girder.
IT = Equivalent torsional constant of leg about longitudinal axis.
Iy = Equivalent second moment of area of leg about y-y axis for stiffness calculations.
Iz = Equivalent second moment of area of leg about z-z axis for stiffness calculations.
L = Variable loads.
L = Distance from the spudcan reaction point to the hull vertical center of gravity.
N = Number of bays, used in determination of equivalent shear area AQ.
OT = Total horizontal offset of leg base with respect to hull
= 0 1 +0 2
01 = Offset of leg base with respect to hull due to leg-hull clearances.
O2 = Offset of leg base with respect to hull due to maximum hull inclination permitted by
the operating manual.
P = Average axial load in the legs at the hull (total leg load divided by number of legs).
P = Guide reaction.
PE = Euler buckling load of an individual leg.
Pg = Total effective gravity load on legs at hull, including the hull weight and weight of
legs above hull.
s = Leg bay height (distance between brace nodes).
{}s = Linear elastic first order displacement of hull.
!!. = Approximate hull displacement including P-L1 effects
= {}s /(1 - PIPE)
v = Poissons ratio for the material
= 0.3 for steel.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6 CALCULATION METHODS· GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Section 6 addresses three groups of geotechnical areas of concern which are discussed in
the following subsections:
6.2 Prediction of footing penetration during preloading.
6.3 Jack-up foundation stability after preloading.
6.4 Other aspects of jack-up foundation performance during or after preloading.
6.1.2 Where geotechnical analyses are performed they should be based on geotechnical data
obtained from a site investigation incorporating soil sampling and/or in-situ testing (see
Section 3.16).
6.1.3 Uncertainties regarding the geotechnical data should be properly reflected in the
interpretation and reporting of analyses for which the data are used.
6.1.4 The majority of spudcans are effectively circular in plan but other spudcan geometries are
not uncommon. Typical spudcan designs are illustrated in Figure 6.1. The bearing
capacity formulas given in this section are consistent with 'circular' spudcan footings
without skin-friction on the leg. Due consideration should be given to the tapered
geometry of most spudcans for bearing capacity assessment.
Note: Terms which are not defined in the text may be found in the Glossary to this
Section.
6.2 Prediction of Footing Penetration During Preloading
6.2.1 Analysis Method
The conventional procedure for the assessment of spudcan load/penetration behavior is

given in the following steps:
1. Model the spudcan.
2. Compute the vertical bearing capacity of the footing at various depths below seabed
using closed form bearing capacity solutions and plot as a curve.
3. Enter the vertical bearing capacity versus footing penetration curve with the specified
maximum preload and read off the predicted footing penetration.
For conventional foundation analyses the spudcan can often be modeled as a flat circular
foundation. The equivalent diameter is determined from the area of the actual spudcan
cross section in contact with the seabed surface, or where the spudcan is fully embedded,
from the largest cross sectional area. Foundation analyses are then performed for this
circular foundation at the depth (D) of the maximum cross sectional area in contact with
the soil. (See Figure 6.2). Alternative shapes, e.g. tubular legs, should be treated as
appropriate.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
r
2.83m
17. 8m 4
Figure 6.1: Typical spudcan geometries
10.lm
Figure 6.2: Spudcan foundation model

Rev 2, Jan 2002
The depth of spudcan penetration is usually defined as the distance from the spudcan tip
to the mudline. It is therefore necessary to correct for this when referring to the analytical
foundation model.
The possibility of soil back-flow over the footing should be considered when computing
bearing capacity. In very soft clays complete back-flow may occur whereas in firm to
stiff clays and granular materials, where limited footing penetration may be expected, the
significance of back-flow diminishes.
Back-flow in clay may be assumed not to occur if:
Nc us
D~-
y'
where, in this case, Cus is taken as the average undrained cohesive shear strength over the
depth of the excavation, N is a stability factor and y' is the submerged unit weight of the
soil.
Conservative stability factors in uniform clays, as a function of excavation depth and

diameter, are summarized in Figure 6.3. Alternative stability factors are given in the
Commentary. For spudcan penetration analyses it is recommended that conservative
criteria are used and the excavation depth be considered as the depth to the maximum
spudcan bearing area.
Both the bearing capacity analyses and the above back-flow analysis are based on simple
solutions developed for other geotechnical purposes or foundation conditions. These
differences should be recognized and are discussed further in the Commentary.
The equations given in the following sections may be considered with or without soil
back-flow over the footing. The additional load from back-flow on the footing increases
the maximum penetration. In general two cases can be distinguished:
Immediate back-flow
Hole side walls collapse after the installation phase.
For deeply penetrated footings the effect of side wall collapse after preloading will be to
significantly reduce the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the foundation. Where
relevant this phenomenon should be considered.
For spudcan penetration analyses the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, Fv, may be
determined at a series of spudcan penetration depths according to the criteria given in
Sections 6.2.2 to 6.2.6.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Undrained shear strength

C C
y'
T
D
u
.D
'B. 2
:
_._._._._:
I~
1 +
constant strength
D_._._._... _._._._.
Nonnal consolidation
profile strength profile
iz 8
v-- l----M;;crhof (1972)
/
V
5
/ Unstable: D~ Nc'us_
4
1/ I I I
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
~ D
--4
Diameter B
Figure 6.3: Stability factors for cylindrical excavations in clay
6.2.2 Penetration in Clays
The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a foundation in clay (undrained failure in clay,
<p =0) at a specific depth can be expressed by:
Fv = (cu.Nc·sc.dc + Po')A.
The maximum preload is equal to the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, Fv, taking into
account the effect of backflow, Fo'A, and the effective weight of the soil replaced by the
spudcan, y'V (see Commentary) i.e.:
VLo = Fv - F'aA + y'V
See Figures 6.2 and 6.4 and note that the terms - F'aA + y'V should always be considered
together.
It is recommended that the value of undrained cohesive shear strength, cu, is taken as the
average value over a distance Bt2 from beneath the level where the maximum spudcan
diameter is in contact with the soil. (Refer to the Commentary).
The bearing capacity formula given above has been empirically derived for surface
foundations and does not account for foundation roughness, shape (conical for most
spudcans) or the effects of increased shear strength with depth. These factors are taken
into account in a method provided in the Commentary.
NJIEI It is recognized that the bearing capacity of a soil may reduce when subjected to cyclic
loading. (Refer to the Commentary.)
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Po'
tt t A,V
~B~ ~B~
No backflow of soil Full backflow of soil
Figure 6.4: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis
6.2.3 Penetration in Silica Sands
The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a circular footing resting in silica sand or other
granular material can be computed by the following equation;
Fv =(0.5 y'B Ny Sy dy + Po' Nq Sq dq)A I
The maximum preload is equal to the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, F v , taking into
account the effect of backflow, Fo'A, and the effective weight of the soil replaced by the
spudcan, y'V (see Commentary) i.e.:
VLo =Fv - FaA + y'V
See Figures 6.4 and note that the terms -F'aA + y'V should always be considered together.
Typically observed load-penetration data for large diameter spudcans suggest that reduced
friction angles may be applicable for this analysis method. To account for this it is
appropriate to reduce the laboratory derived by 5°. Further recommendations on the
selection of values are given in the Commentary together with a discussion regarding
the use of alternative bearing capacity factors.
6.2.4 Penetration in Carbonate Sands
Penetrations in carbonate sands are highly unpredictable and may be minimal in strongly
cemented materials, or large, in uncemented materials. Extreme care should be exercised
when operating in these materials. Further discussion regarding these soil conditions is
provided in the Commentary.
6.2.5 Penetration in Silts
It is recommended that upper and lower bound analyses for drained and undrained
conditions are performed to determine the range of penetrations. The upper bound
solution is modeled as a loose sand and the lower bound solution as a soft clay. Cyclic
loading may significantly affect the bearing capacity of silts. See discussion in
Commentary.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.2.6 Penetration in Layered Soils
Three 'basically different foundation failure mechanisms are considered m spudcan

predictions in layered soils:
1. General shear.
2. Squeezing.
3. Punch-through.
The first failure mechanism occurs if soil strengths of subsequent layers do not vary
significantly. Thus an average soil strength (either Cu or <1» can be determined below the
footing. The footing penetration versus foundation capacity relationship is then generated
using criteria from Sections 6.2.2 through 6.2.5.
Criteria for the other two failure mechanisms (squeezing and punch-through) are given
below. The last condition is of particular significance since it concerns a potentially
dangerous situation where a strong layer overlies a weak layer and hence a small
additional spudcan penetration may be associated with a significant reduction in bearing
capacity.
6.2.6.1 Squeezing of clay
On a soft clay subject to squeezing overlaying a significantly stronger layer (Figure 6.5),
the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a footing given by Meyerhof [8] is:
For no back-flow conditions:
Fv=A{(a+
bB
T I.2D
+ B ) cu + Po'} ~A{Ncscdecu+Po'}
and for full back-flow conditions:
I
Fv = A{(a + -
bB
T
1.2D
+ - - ) c u} + Vy' ~ A{Nc Sc de cu} + Vy'
B
where the following squeezing factors are recommended:
I
a =5.00
b =0.33
and C u refers to the undrained shear strength of the soft clay layer.
:, st~ong soil , strong soil

I4--B~ jif-B~
No bacldlow of soil Full backflow of soil
Figure 6.5: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - squeezing clay layer

Rev 2, Jan 2002
It is noted that the lower bound foundation capacity is given by general failure in the clay
layer (right hand side of equation), and that squeezing occurs when B ~ 3.45T(l +l.lDIB).
The upper bound capacity (for T<<B) is detennined by the ultimate bearing capacity of
the underlying strong soil layer.
Comment on the limits included in the above relationships is provided in the

Commentary.
6.2.6.2 Punch-through: Two clay layers
The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a spudcan on the surface of a strong clay layer
overlying a weak clay layer can be computed according to Brown [9]:
H
Fv = A (3 Cu,t + Nc Sc Cu,b) ::;; A Ne Se Cu,t
13
See Figure 6.6.
For the evaluation of punch-through potential for deep footings, and to achieve
compatibility with the equations used for homogeneous clays, the following equations are
recommended:
For no back-flow conditions:

Fv =A {3 H
13 Cu,t + Ne Se (1 + 0.2 D+H
B ) Cu,b + Po'} ::;; A(Ne Se de Cu,t + Po') I
and for full back-flow conditions:
Fv =A [3 -
H Cu,t + Ne Se (1 + 0.2
D+ H, N '
) Cu,b] + YV ::;; A e Se de Cu,t + YV
B B
·.
Po'
A,V A,V
***
Cu,t Strong cla~
H
:t Strong clay
,
Cub Weak clay Weak clay
1'4 B Ilol I'f B Ilol
No backflow of soil Full backflow of soil
Figure 6.6: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - finn clay over weak clay
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.2.6.2 It is noted that the condition (finn clay over soft clay) can also be "man-made" as in some
clays artificial crusts can fonn during delays in the installation procedure. Caution is
therefore required in situations where soil sampling/testing is perfonned from a jack-up
prior to preloading.
6.2.6.3 Punch-through: Sand overlying clay
The ultimate vertical capacity of a spudcan on a sand layer overlying a weak clay layer
can be computed using:
For no back-flow:
H
Fv = Fv,b - A Hy' + 2 B (Hy' + 2 p'o) Kstan<j> A
and for full or partial back-flow:
Fv =Fv,b - A Hy' - A I y' + 2 H (Hy' + 2 p'o) Kstan<j> A
B
where;
Fv,b is determined according to Section 6.2.2 assuming the footing bears on the
surface of the lower clay layer, with no back-flow. .
See Figure 6.7.
The coefficient of punching shear, K s, depends on the strength of both the sand layer and
the clay layer. For practical purposes a lower bound for the tenn Ks tan<j>, applicable to
the onset of punch-through, can be approximated by:
Ks tan<j> =: 3culBy'
An alternative analysis method is described in the Commentary.
:::::: :
::::::,:::::::
::::::::::..
:;:::..
..:
: :
... . .:.
.: .:. ,:'::. Y=P'o
D
Po' I "'.:::
A,V A,V I
**t <p;y I
~B---JII
No backHow of soil Full backflow of soil
Figure 6.7: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - sand over clay

Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.2.6.4 Three Layered Systems
The foundation bearing capacity for a spudcan resting on three soil layers can be
computed using the squeezing and punch-through criteria for two layer systems. Firstly
the bearing capacity of a footing with diameter B resting on top of the lower two layers is
computed. These two layers can then be treated as one (lower) layer in a subsequent two
layer system analysis involving the (third) upper layer. For further explanation see Figure
6.8.
Analysis 2
Qv
Layer I
Analysis 1
Qv
Layer 2
Layer 3
Use 2 layer bearing capacity procedures for both analyses
Analysis 2 Analysis 1
Layer lover (Layer 2 and 3) Layer 2 over layer 3
Figure 6.8: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - three layer case

Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.3 Foundation Stability Assessment
6.3.1 Approach
The overall foundation stability may be assessed using a phased method with three steps
increasing in order of complexity (See Figure 6.9):
- Step 1 Preload and Sliding Check (Section 6.3.2). The foundation capacity check is
based on the preloading capability. Sliding of the windward leg is also
checked. Loads from pinned footing analysis.
- Step 2 Bearing Capacity Check.
Step 2a Bearing capacity check (Section 6.3.3), based on resultant loading, assuming
a pinned footing. (see Section 5.3.1). Also check sliding.
Step 2b Bearing capacity check (Section 6.3.4),including rotational, vertical and

translational foundation stiffness.
- Step 3 Displacement Check (Section 6.3.5). The displacement check requires the
calculation of the displacements associated with an overload situation
arising from Step 2b.
Any higher level check need only be performed if the lower level check fails to meet the
foundation acceptance criteria given in Section 8.3.
The following sections give details regarding the three phased acceptance procedure.
However, there are certain aspects which are not covered in these sections which may
require further consideration. Some of the more common ones are listed below:
- Soils where the "long term" (drained) bearing capacity is less than the "short tenn"
(undrained) capacity. This may be the case for overconsolidated cohesive soils (silts
and clays) with significant amounts of sand seams.
- Where soil back-flows over the spudcan after the preload installation phase, (silts,
clays).
- If a reduction of soil strength due to cyclic loading occurs. This can be of particular
significance for silty soils and/or carbonate materials.
- If an increase in spudcan penetration occurs, due to cyclic loading, where a potential

punch-through exists.
- In soils with horizontal seams of weak soils located beneath the spudcan it is
recommended that the lateral bearing capacity/sliding stability of the foundation is
verified.
If any of the above circumstances exist further analysis is required.
In the case of partial spudcan embedment, (e.g. sandy soils), additional footing
embedment may result in a considerable increase in bearing capacity.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
erlonn structlJ!"al analysis assuni~ pirned footi~.

See Section 5.
- - - - SUggested path to
shoW decisIon mt
to ~t Ulit based
(rI. sirrple analysis
method
OK
PeriOI'Dl structural analysis

1 - - - - - - - 1 assuni~ mnent fixity with I---,--+--"
elastic vertical ard horiz- I
I -<ntal sprir:6S. See 6.3.4
~ _____~ ~~~_1~ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
I
I
I
r---------
I
~~--~~~
Perfonn structural lnIlysis
assuuire fu[l non-linear
fOUl::lation stiffnesses_
See 6.3.5
I
I
L ___ _ Fou-dIIti on NOT shOW'l Fardati(rl
to be Acceptabl e Acceptable
Figure 6.9: Foundation stability assessment

Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.3.2 Ultimate bearing capacity for vertical loading - Preload Check (Step 1)
Except as discussed in 6.3.1, when the horizontal load is small, the ultimate vertical
bearing capacity under extreme conditions is assumed to be the same as the maximum
footing load during preloading, (VuJ The minimum requirements for VLo are given in
Section 8.3.1.3 or 8.3.2 as applicable.
6.3.3 Bearing Capacity/Sliding Check - Pinned footing (Step 2a)
A reduction in vertical bearing capacity, Fv, of a footing occurs when it is simultaneously

subjected to horizontal loading, QH, and moment loading, QM. The latter is ignored in
Step 2a analyses as the footings are considered to be pinned.
The verticalfhorizontal capacity envelope, FVH, for sands and clays may be generated
according to the following criteria, however, further discussion with regard to the
analytical applicability is provided in the Commentary.
6.3.3.1 Ultimate Verticallhorizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcanfootings in sand:
The general ultimate verticallhorizontal bearing capacity envelope for jack-up footings in
sand is as follows:
FVH ::: A (0.5 y' B Ny Sy iy dy + Po'Nq Sq iq dq)
During the preloading phase it may be assumed that no horizontal load acts on the
foundation and that the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the soil is in equilibrium with
the applied footing installation load, V 10. The applied footing installation load should
include the effect of back-flow and spudcan buoyancy i.e. VLo ::: Fv - Fo'A + y'V. In this
instance the inclination factors assume values of unity and the remaining telTI1S may be
defined.
Substituting for iq and iy the appropriate relationship may be written for generation of the
foundation capacity for combined vertical and horizontal loading as:
This may be solved by the use of assumed values for (FHlFvH ) designated (FHlFvH )* . For
example use (FHlFvH )* ::: 0.00,0.04,0.08,0.12, etc. For these values corresponding FVH
values may be determined.
The correct FH values may then be determined as FVH and (FHlFvH )* are known, e.g. for
(FHlFvH )* ::: 0.12, FH* ::: 0.12 FVH*.
The corrected horizontal capacity, FH, may then be given as:

FH ::: FH* + 0.5y' (kp - ka ) (hI + h2) As
The sliding capacity envelope of a footing in sand is given by:

FH ::: FvHtan[) + 0.5y' (kp - ka) (hI + h2) As
where [) is the steel/soil friction angle which for a flat plate, [) ::: <1> - 5°, and for a rough
surfaced conically shaped spudcan [)::: <1>.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.3.3.2 Ultimate verticallhorizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcan; footings in clay
The general equation for the horizontal and vertical bearing capacity envelopes for
footings in clay is as follows:
FVH = A [(Ne Cu Se de ie) + Po' Nq Sq iq dq]
Substituting for the inclination factors for a circular footing the equation may be written
as:
FVH = A {Ne C u Se de [1 - (1.SFH*lNeAc u)]
+ Po' Nq Sq (1 - FH*IFVH)1.5 dq}
The ultimate bearing capacity envelope under inclined loading may be determined by
substituting values of FVH and solving for FH*.
FH may then be given as:

FH = FH* + (c uo + cUl)As
Footing sliding capacity in clay:
When 0 ::; Qv ::; 0.5 Fv the sliding capacity in clay may be conservatively assumed
constant, determined by:
I
FH = Ac uo + (c uo + cuDAs
6.3.3.3 Ultimate verticallhorizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcanfor spudcanfootings

on layered soils.
The above formulas (Sections 6.3.3.1 through 6.3.3.2) can also generally be used to make
a conservative estimate of the ultimate FvWFH relationship for layered soils by
considering failure through the weakest zones in such a soil profile.
The bearing capacity of layered soils may be determined using the principles of limiting
equilibrium analysis or the finite element method.
6.3.3.4 Settlements resulting from exceedence of the capacity envelope
Vertical settlement andlor sliding of a footing can occur if the storm load combination is
in excess of the (FvWFH) resistance envelope computed for the spudcan at the penetration
achieved during installation. Such settlements can result in a gain of (FVWFH) bearing
capacity, e.g. in silica sands. However, the integrity of the foundation may decrease in
the situation where a potential punch-through exists, e.g. where dense sand overlies soft
clay. More thorough analyses are required for complex andlor potentially dangerous
foundation conditions of the type listed in Section 6.3.1.
6.3.4 Footing with moment fixity and vertical and horizontal stiffness (Step 2b)
Foundation fixity is the rotational restraint offered by the soil supporting the foundation.
The degree of fixity is dependent on the soil type, the maximum vertical footing load
during installation, the foundation stress history, the structural stiffness of the unit, the
geometry of the footings and the combination of vertical and horizontal loading under
consideration.
Inclusion of foundation fixity in an assessment incorporates a check on bearing capacity

in terms of vertical and horizontal (sliding) capacities. The amount of rotational fixity is
Rev 2, Jan 2002
not directly involved in a checking equation, but it serves to modify the forces
(beneficially) in both the foundation and structure. The bearing and sliding checks are
performed implicitly through the use of the yield function and explicitly through the
bearing capacity and sliding checks described in Section 6.3.3.
Uncertainties in soil properties should be considered when including fixity in

assessments. Where data reliability is uncertain, an upperllower bound sensitivity
analysis should be performed.
For performing structural analysis, horizontal and vertical spring stiffnesses should be
included in addition to the rotational stiffness (see Section 5.3). The springs should be
applied to the spudcan support point as defined in Section 5.2. The calculation of fixity
should be based on factored environmental loading including dead, live, environmental,
inertial and p-~ loads.
6.3.4.1 Calculation procedures accounting for moment fixity - See also 6.3.4.6
II
The interaction of vertical, horizontal and rotational forces has been modeled based on a
plasticity relationship (References C6 [48] through [52]). The plasticity relationship can
account for moment softening at high load levels, unloading behavior and work-
hardening effects. This type of foundation modeling is preferable if foundation fixity is
to be included directly in a time-domain analysis.
For a pseudo-static analysis, a simplified application of this full plasticity analysis is

described in this section. This simple approach can be used to create moment loads on
the spudcan by inclusion of a simple linear rotational spring to generate moments at the
spudcan. The moment thus induced on the spudcan is limited to a capacity based on the
yield interaction relationship among vertical (Qv), horizontal (QH) and moment (QM)
loads acting at the spudcan.
This simple procedure is described in the following steps:
1. Include vertical, horizontal and (initial) rotational stiffnesses (linear springs) to the
analytical model and apply the gravity and factored metocean and inertial loading.
2. Calculate the yield interaction function value using the resulting forces at each
spudcan. For extreme wave analysis, the result will likely indicate the force
combination falls outside the yield surface. In this case, reduce the rotational stiffness
(arbitrarily) and repeat the analysis.
3. Continue with step 2 until the force combination at each spudcan lies essentially on
the yield surface. If the moment is reduced to zero, and the force combination is still
outside the yield surface, then a bearing failure (either vertical or horizontal) is
indicated.
4. If a force combination initially falls within the yield surface, the rotational stiffness
must be further checked to satisfy the reduced stiffness conditions in Section 6.3.4.3.
The following sections are applicable to traditional spudcan designs. Information on

spudcans fitted with skirts can be found in references C6 [48] through [51].
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.3.4.2 Ultimate Vertical/horizontal/rotational capacity interaction; function for spudcan
footings in sand and clay
For shallow embedment for both sand and clay, the yield interaction is defined by the
following expression:
16 [F~ J[1- F~ ][1-F;: ]-[~:J [~:J =0

where VLo is taken to be equal to the vertical spudcan load achieved during preloading
and HLo and MLo are defined as follows:
For sand:
HLo = (C l 1 C 2)(VLo 14)
= O.l2VLo
with C l = 0.3, C 2 =0.625
MLo =C lVLo B/4
= 0.075VLoB
For clay: HLo =cuoA + (cuo + Cui) As

MLo = O.IVwB
Note that in the above expression for the yield surface, if a load combination (QV,QH,QM)
satisfies the equality then (QV,QH,QM) = (FVHM, F HM , FM). The load combination
(QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield surface if the left-hand side is less than zero.
Conversely, the load combination lies inside the yield surface if the left-hand side is
greater than zero.
An alternative expression of the yield surface gives the maximum spudcan moment as a
function of the horizontal and vertical loads. Thus, for a given vertical and horizontal
load combination, the moment at a spudcan cannot exceed the value defined below.
F=MLDH ~Jl- ~~][I- ~~] -[ ~:JT'

M
Embedded footings in clay achieve greater moment and sliding capacities as compared to
shallow penetrations in clay. For fully or partially penetrated spudcans, the yield surface
at FVHMNLo<0.5 can be expressed as:
10- ~
. flHLo [ F ]2 - [F M
f2 M Lo
]2 =0
where;
f, = a+ a{ ~ ]
2(1 -
f2 = fl where suction (i.e. uplift resistance) is available,
= 4[ F~ ] [1- F;: ] where suction cannot be relied upon
a = 1.0 for soft clays

= 0.5 for stiff clays (see over)
Rev 2, Jan 2002
a accounts for the degree of adhesion. Engineers may want to consider a values within
the range 0.5-1.0 depending on site specific soil data, spudcan/soil interface roughness,
etc. An a value less than 0.5 may be considered for situations such as a hard clay at the
surface. In this case, the standard form of the yield surface should be considered.
There is no existing data for deeply embedded footings in sand. The application of the
yield surface calibrated to shallow penetrations will likely be conservative for the deep
penetration case.
6.3.4.3 Estimation of rotational, vertical, and horizontal stiffness
An initial estimate for rotational stiffness, K3, which is applicable for a flat spudcan
without embedment (Winterkom [10]) under relatively low levels of load is given below:
G B3
K3 = r , flat spudcan with no embedment
3(1- v)
Values for K3 for other cases are given in the Commentary. The selection of the
rotational shear modulus, Gn is discussed in the Commentary (Note for the recommended
values based on Dean, the appropriate units are kN-mlrad.) An upper or lower bound
I
value should be selected as appropriate for the analysis being undertaken.
For clays susceptible to cyclic degradation (OCR ~ 4) the soil rotational stiffness,
calculated from the degraded static soil properties, may be multiplied by a factor of 1.25,
Anderson [18].
If the load combination of (Qv,QH,QM) lies outside the yield surface, the linear rotational
stiffness at the spudcan must be reduced until the load combination lies on the yield
surface. The reduction in stiffness is arbitrary and requires iterative analyses.
It should be noted that if the initial load combination (QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield
surface, the final value of the rotational stiffness is determined only by the requirement
that the generated moment at the spudcan falls on the yield surface.
If the load combination of (QV,QH,QM) lies inside the yield surface, the initial estimate of
rotational stiffness should be reduced by a factor, fro The reduction factor is equal to
unity when the moment and horizontal forces are zero. It is given by the following
expression:
where rf is the failure ratio defined by:
Note that rf > 1.0 implies that the load combination (Qv,QH,QM) lies outside the yield
surface. Under such conditions, the reduced stiffness factor is not applicable.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
For fully embedded foundations in clays at vertical load ratio FVHMNLo < 0.5, the failure
ratio may be expressed as:
r,= {[~J +[f~JT

where fl and f2 are as defined in Section 6.3.4.2 above, but replacing FVHM with Qv.
Vertical and horizontal stiffnesses can be estimated from the Boussinesq elastic solutions
for a rigid circular plate on an elastic half-space (assuming no embedment):
2G v B
Vertical stiffness, KI = ---'--
(I-v)
I6G h B(1-v)
Horizontal stiffness, K2 = ---!!..--'----'-
(7 - 8v)
Advice on the selection of appropriate values for Gy and Gh may be found in the
Commentary.
6.3.4.4 Extension of the yield surface for additional penetration
On seabeds of silica sands, conical spudcans which are not fully seated may show a
plastic moment restraint due to further penetration. The effect may be taken into account
for legs with QVNLo > O.
The moment capacity Mp associated with further penetration is estimated as the minimum
of Mps and Mpv, calculated as follows:
M ps =0.075 B VLo(DIB)3
Mpv =0.15 B FVHM
in which B is the plan diameter of the effective contact area after preload, and D is the
plan diameter of the contact area when the spudcan is fully seated.
The combined capacity should be checked against the modified yield function:
16[F~:HI-F~] [l_F~] -[~:J-[~J =0

For additional penetration of spudcans in clay, references C6 [49] and [52] provide work-
hardening modifications to the yield surface equations. Updated stiffnesses are
determined through plasticity principles.
6.3.4.5 Deep Footing Penetration
For deep footing penetrations, typically experienced in soft clay conditions, the
calculation of foundation fixity may be augmented with the inclusion of the lateral soil
resistance on the leg members due to soil back-flow over the spudcan. This lateral soil
resistance is effectively added to the rotational elastic stiffness of the spudcan (as
determined in Section 6.3.4.3), (Brekke [7]).
The lateral soil resistance may be modeled based on concepts proposed by Matlock [17]
for lateral soil resistance of piles. The jack-up leg may be modeled as an equivalent pile
for purposes of determining "p-y", or load-deflection curves.
The diameters of the individual members (i.e., leg chords and braces) give appropriate
characteristic dimensions for determining the p-y curves. The p-y curve for each member
Rev 2, Jan 2002
is summed to form a p-y curve for the entire leg. Only one face of each leg should be
assumed to be in contact with the soil and contribute to lateral resistance.
Given a set of p-y curves for the leg, the lateral force-deflection along the entire
embedded leg section is thus determined. Typically, equivalent springs at each bay
elevation are used to simplify the calculations.
6.3 .4.6 Calculation procedures accounting for moment fixity - further details
Structural analyses should account for rotational, horizontal and vertical stiffnesses at all
spudcans. The jack-up is then acceptable if the following conditions are met:
1. Structural conditions satisfy acceptance criteria outlined in Section 8.1.
2. Factored foundation loads Qv, QH satisfy, as applicable, the bearing capacity criteria
in Sections 8.3.2 or 8.3.1.5.
3. Factored foundation loads Qv, QH, QM satisfy the appropriate unfactored yield
surface criterion from Section 6.3.4.2 or 6.3.4.4. Factored foundation loads
exceeding this requirement are permitted provided that the soil-structure interaction
model adopted accurately captures the expansion of the foundation yield surface after
first yield, and that the large-displacement effects of associated structural
displacements are taken into account.
4. The analysis ensures load & displacement compatibility between the foundation and
the structure.
5. The location is not prone to, or is protected from, scour so that the assumed fixity is
assured.
Fixity may be included in the response simulation in three ways (Refer to Figure 6.11
below):
1. By conservatively considering effects of changes to seabed boundary reactions only
and ignoring any reduction in the dynamic response with pinned footings. In this
approach quasi-static analyses are used in the iterations of the procedure given in
Section 6.3.4.1 to derive the foundation rotational and horizontal secant stiffnesses
with loadings obtained from the pinned foundation case including dynamics. This
approach is not applicable if the inclusion of fixity brings the natural period closer to
the wave period.
2. By considering linearised fixity in SnOF or more detailed dynamic calculations and
then carrying out a final quasi-static analysis with non-linear fixity using the
procedure of Section 6.3.4.1. If this approach is adopted, care should be taken to
ensure that the natural period with fixity does not fall at a cancellation point in the
wave force transfer function (Sections 7.3.5.2, 7.3.5.4, C7.4 & Fig C7.1). Typically
the initial linearised rotational stiffness for the dynamic analysis may be taken as
80% of value determined from the formulation in the first paragraph of Section
6.3.4.3. When this stiffness is adjusted to avoid wave force cancellation, the adjusted
value may lie anywhere between 0% and 100% of the value from Section 6.3.4.3.
This simplified approach does not capture the temporary reductions in stiffness
which occur during plasticity events, but also does not capture the increased damping
that is associated with these events; these two effects are considered to be largely
self-cancelling. Given that care is taken to avoid wave force cancellation effects, it is
Rev 2, Jan 2002
considered that the dynamic response will be determined at a level which is either
realistic or conservative.
For further discussion of approaches which may be used to avoid cancellation and
reinforcement effects refer to the Commentary Section C7.4.
3. By considering the effects of the foundation fixity on both the dynamic response and
the seabed reactions. This approach is more complete and may require a complex
iterative calculation procedure. The following outline procedure may be adopted:
a) Use a time-domain dynamic analysis to determine structural
response and foundation loadings at each time step.
b) Compute the foundation behaviour using a non-linear elasto-plastic
model, such that at each time step the plastic and elastic portions of
the behaviour are captured. If desired, this model may include
hysteresis. This will likely require an iterative procedure.
c) When plasticity occurs, the responses will be influenced by the load
history. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the
methodology used to determine the extreme values provides stable
results. In cases where the analysis is intended to provide final
results (rather than DAF's for application in subsequent analysis
step) it may be appropriate to perform analyses for differing wave
histories, and then determine the extremes from a procedure such as
that given in C7.B.2.4.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
' .......--+-Ilk1it NOT

acceptable
RU1 new d)InInic response

Not OC 8'lal)'Sis usi~ Latest
~------I f~tion stlffnesses ard
cletermir-e new inertial loadset
Perfom ~;·static ~ analysis

incltl:tiJ"Q inertial toadset
calculate new rotational stiffnesses

based CIn load CCJlbination (Q". QH' ~)
(See 5ectiClnS 6.3.4.1 &6.3.'.2)
~"""'----1 Perlonn Step 3
Unit
acceptable
Figure 6.10: Calculation procedure to account for foundation fixity

Recommended Practice for Site Specific A ssessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 81
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Assume elastic spudcan response

QM =K3• • Qv = K)· v' QH = K 2• h.
Not OK Unit NOT

acceptable
(Section 6.3.4.6 Option 1)

Run iterative structural analysis using
current inertialloadset and de-grade
Simplified foundation stiffness until spudcan loads fall
(Section 6.3.4.6 Option 2) within foundation yield surface. Section
6.3.4.1
Select initiallinearised fixity
Run dynamic analysis using linearised

fixity and determine wave force
transfer functions.
No
Select revised linearised fixity

&lor change hull mass.
Run non-linear elasto-plastic soil time-

domain analysis and determine DAF from a
number of differing storm simulations. Use
resulting DAF to determine new inertial
loadset. (Section 6.3.4.5 Option 3)
Unit NOT
Unit acceptable
acceptable
Figure 6.11: Calculation procedure to account for foundation fixity

Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.3.5 Displacement Check (Step 3)

Structural model with nonlinear soil response included
When a Step 2 assessment results in an overload situation, Step 3 may be used to
calculate the associated displacements and rotations from a full nonlinear load-
displacement foundation model. The procedure should account for the load redistribution
resulting from the overload and displacement of the spudcan(s). The displacements
derived from the analysis should be checked against the allowable displacements of the
spudcans and should satisfy the following requirements:
The spudcan vertical and horizontal displacements should not lead to
unacceptable overturning or strength checks.
The resulting rotation of the unit should neither exceed the limitations defined by
the operating manual nor lead to the possibility of contact with any adjacent
structure.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.4 Other Aspects of Jack-Up Unit Foundation Perfonnance
6.4.1 Leaning Instability
Leaning instability of jack-ups can occur during preloading operations in soft clays where
the rate of increase in bearing capacity with depth is small. In deep water a potentially
unsafe condition (comparable to a punch-through situation) may occur. However, the
potential for such incidents may be discounted if appropriate installation procedures are
adopted. These may, for example, include preloading the footings individually.
Further discussion on leaning instability is included in the Commentary.
6.4.2 Footprint Considerations
The seabed depressions which remain when a jack-up is removed from a location are
referred to as 'footprints'. The form of these features depends on several factors such as
the spudcan shape, the soil conditions, the footing penetration achieved and the method of
extraction. The shape, and the time period over which the fonn will exist, will also be
affected by the local sedimentary regime.
The positioning of spudcans very close to, or partially overlapping, footprints is not
recommended. The difference in resistance between the original soil and the disturbed
soil in the footprint area and/or the slope at the footprint perimeter, may cause the
spudcans to slide towards the footprint. The resulting leg displacements could cause
severe damage to the structure and, at worst, could lead to catastrophic failure. The
situation could be complicated by the proximity of a fixed structure or wellhead.
The following two operational sequences may be considered:
a) Installation of an identical jack-up design to that previously used at a particular

location:
If a jack-up with identical footing geometry to the unit previously used is to be

installed, the re-positioning should not cause problems provided that the jack-up is
located in exactly the same position as for the previously installed unit. Thus the
footings would lie in the existing footprints. It is therefore necessary to ensure that
reliable records are obtained of the exact location of existing footprints in relation to
the well/jacket.
If the new spudcan positions are not located directly over the footprints sliding of the
legs may occur with the potential consequences described above.
b) Installation of a jack-up of different design to that previously used at a particular

location:
It is unlikely for two jack-up designs to have similar footing geometries. It is

therefore probable that it will not be possible to locate the spudcans exactly within the
existing footprints. However, it may be possible to carefully position the jack-up on a
new heading, and/or with one footing located over a footprint with the others in virgin
Rev 2, Jan 2002
soil, to alleviate the potential for spudcan sliding. Again reliable records of existing
footprint locations (and depths) are required.
Where it is not possible to locate the jack-up to avoid spudcan-footprint interaction

special attention is required to minimize the potential sliding problem. Consideration
may be given to infilling the footprints with imported materials. The material
selection should recognize the potential for material removal, by scour, and the
differences of material stiffness.
Further discussion is included in the Commentary.
6.4.3 Scour
Scour may occur when a footing or other object is installed on the seabed, and its
presence causes increased local current velocities. The phenomenon is usually observed
around spudcans which are embedded to a shallow level in granular materials at locations
with high current velocities.
Scour may partially remove the soil from below the footing, resulting in a reduction of the
ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation and any seabed fixity. This is normally a
gradual process and the effects of the reduced bearing capacity may not be apparent until
during storm loading when (rapid) downward movement of the leg may occur. The
effects of scour are potentially more severe when it occurs at a location where a potential
for punch-through exists.
There is no definitive procedure for the evaluation of scour potential and emphasis must
usually be placed on previous operational experience. Further guidance is given in the
Commentary.
If scour is recognized to be a potential problem, then preventative measures should be

implemented. These should be adopted on a trial basis and include:
a) Gravel dumping prior to installation provided the selected gravel gradation will not
cause damage to the jack-up footing.
b) Installation of artificial seaweed.
c) Use of stone/gravel dumping, gravel bags or grout mattresses after installation.

Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.4.4 Seafloor Instability
Seafloor instability may be caused by a number of mechanisms which may be interactive

or act independently. The most frequent types of instability result in large scale mass
movement, in the form of mudslides or slope failures. Such phenomena are often
associated with deltaic deposits, and it is recommended that the advice of local experts is
obtained when such situations are encountered.
Liquefaction, or cyclic mobility, occurs when the cyclic stresses within the soils cause a
progressive build up of pore pressure. The pore pressure within the profile may build up
to a stage where it becomes equal to the initial average vertical effective stress.
Foundation failure may result depending on the extent of pore pressure developed.
Such failures may be manifested as continued foundation settlements or large scale failure
of the soil mass as described above. In areas where liquefaction is known to be possible
its potential must be assessed.
For further guidance refer to the Commentary.
6.4.5 Shallow Gas
Gas in soils may originate from biogenic degradation or thermogenic diagenesis.
Gas charged sediments may result in hazards during site investigation soil borings,
reduced bearing capacity, unpredictable foundation behavior (due to seabed depressions
or gas accumulations under the spudcans) and complications with shallow drilling
operations, including blowouts.
The presence of gas charged sediments may be identified by geophysical digital high
resolution shallow seismic surveys using attribute analysis techniques.
Any gas concentration should be avoided if it is located above the primary casing shoe
level (generally 20 inch or 18.75 inch diameter casing) or the conductor pipe shoe level
which are determined during the drilling program design. This is because neither of these
holes are drilled under BOP control and, therefore, there is a risk of seabed cratering
around the well which could result in the undermining of the footings in the event of a
blowout.
Of lesser risk is the potential for gas migration from depth to the surface outside the
casing. Although this occurrence is uncommon the potential should not be discounted.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6.4.6 Spudcan - Pile Interaction
For jack-ups located in close proximity to pile-founded platfonns, soil displacements

caused by the spudcan penetration will induce lateral loading into the nearby piles. The
amount of soil displacement will depend on the spudcan proximity (spudcan edge-to-pile
distance), the spudcan diameter and penetration. If the foundation materials comprise
either a deep layer of homogeneous finn to stiff clay or sand and if the proximity of the
spudcan to the pile is greater than one spudcan diameter, then no significant pile loading
is expected. When the proximity is closer than one spudcan diameter, then analysis by
the platfonn owner is recommended to determine the consequences of the induced pile
loading.
Guidance regarding the analytical procedures available for assessing these spudcan
induced pile loads is given in the Commentary.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - CALCULATION METHODS. GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
A = Spudcan effective bearing area based on cross-section taken at uppermost part

of bearing area in contact with soil (see Figure 6.2).
= Spudcan laterally projected embedded area.
= Bearing capacity squeezing factor.
= Adhesion.
= Effective spudcan diameter at uppermost part of bearing area in contact with the
soil (for rectangular footing B = width).
b = Bearing capacity squeezing factor.
Cu = Undrained cohesive shear strength at D + B/4 below mudline.
CuI = Undrained cohesive shear strength at spudcan tip.
Cuo = Undrained cohesive shear strength at maximum bearing area (D below
mudline).
cus = Undrained cohesive shear strength at DI2 below mudline.
Cu,b = Undrained cohesive shear strength - lower clay below spudcan.
Cu,t = Undrained cohesive shear strength - upper clay below spudcan.
C1
C2 : } Constants used in computation of HLo and VLo for sand.
de = Bearing capacity depth factor.

= 1 + 0.4 (DIB) for DIB ~ 1.
= 1 + 0.4 arctan (DIB) for DIB > 1.
= Bearing capacity depth factor.
= 1 + 2tanq,(1- sinq,)2 DIB for DIB ~ 1
= 1 + 2tanq,(1- sinq,)2 arctan(DlB) for DIB > 1
= Bearing capacity depth factor = 1.
=
=
=
Distance from mudline to spudcan maximum bearing area.
Factor used in yield surface equation for embedded footings on clay.
Factor used in yield surface equation for embedded footings on clay.
I
= Reduction factor on stiffness.
= Effective overburden pressure due to back-flow at depth of uppermost part of
bearing area.
= Horizontal foundation capacity.
= Horizontal foundation capacity in combination with moment.
= Vertical foundation capacity.
= Ultimate vertical bearing capacity assuming the footing bears on the surface of
the lower (bottom) clay layer with no back-flow.
FVH = Vertical foundation capacity in combination with horizontal load.
FVHM = Vertical foundation capacity in combination with horizontal and moment load.
FM = Moment capacity of foundation.
Gv = Shear Modulus for vertical loading.
Gh = Shear Modulus for horizontal loading.
Gr = Shear Modulus for rotational loading.
h = Distance from rotation point to reaction point.
hI = Embedment depth to the uppermost part of the spudcan, (if not fully embedded
=0).
= Spudcan tip embedment depth.
= Distance from spudcan maximum bearing area to weak strata below.
= (C I/C 2)(Vr.ol4), C I =0.3, C2 =0.625 (sand)
= Ac uo +(c uo + cuI)As (clay)
= Inclination factor (for q, =0).
= 1 - mPH/ACuNc
Rev 2, Jan 2002
6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - CALCULATION METHODS. GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING (Continued)
= Inclination factor.
= (1 - FHlFvH)m
iy = Inclination factor.
= (1 - FHlFvH)m+1
I Height of soil column above spudcan.
ka = Active earth pressure coefficient (for Cu = 0) = tan 2(45-<j>/2)
kp = Passive earth pressure coefficient = 1lka
K 1,K2,K3 = Stiffness factors.
Ks = Coefficient of punching shear.
L = Foundation length, for circular foundation L=B.
For strip footing - inclination in direction of shorter side.
= (2 + BIL)/(1 + BIL)
m= For strip footing - inclination in direction of longer side.
=(2 + IJB)/(1 + IJB)
For circular footing = 1.5
M1.o = C 1VwB/4, C 1 =0.3 (sand)
= O.lVwB (clay)
= moment capacity associated with further spudcan penetration under
environmental loading (equal to minimum ofMps and Mpv).
= moment capacity when further spudcan penetration leads to fully seated spud
conditions.
Mpv = moment capacity under further spudcan penetration, when the actual vertical
force is too low to reach fully seated conditions.
n = Iteration factor, ~ 2.
N = Stability factor.
Nc = Bearing capacity factor (taken as 5.14).
Nq = =
Bearing capacity factor e7ttanCPtan 2(45 + <j>/2)
Ny = Bearing capacity factor =2(Nq + l)tan<j>
Po' = Effective overburden pressure at depth, D, of maximum bearing area.
QH = Applied factored horizontal load.
QM = Applied factored moment load.
Qv = Applied factored vertical load.
rf = Failure ratio.
Sc = Bearing capacity shape factor =(1 + (NqINc)(BIL»
Sq = Bearing capacity shape factor =1 + (BIL)tan<j>
Sy = Bearing capacity shape factor =1 - 0.4(B1L)
( = 0.6 for circular footing under pure vertical load).
T Thickness of weak clay layer underneath spudcan.
V = Volume of soil displaced by spudcan.
V1.0 = Maximum vertical foundation load during preloading.
ex = Adhesion factor = 1.0 for soft clays, = 0.5 for stiff clays. I
8 = Steel/soil friction angle - degrees, (-5::;;8::;;<j».
Ov = Vertical displacement of foundation.
&t = Horizontal displacement of foundation.
y' = Submerged unit weight of soil.
e = Foundation rotation - radians.
<j> = Angle of internal friction for sand - degrees.
v = Poisson's ratio.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7 CALCULATION :METHODS· DETERMINATION OF RESPONSES
7.1 General
7.1.1 The response of a jack-up unit is determined by combining the applied loading with a
structural model to determine the internal forces in the members and the reactions at the
foundations. These are compared with the resistances available to take up these loads to
determine the safety of the unit. The loads consist of fixed loads (self weight and non-
varying loads) and variable loads (see Section 3.2) together with hydrodynamic and wind
loadings (see Section 4). The structural modeling is described in Section 5. The
foundation resistance is described in Section 6. Section 8 provides the structural
resistance and a methodology to check the adequacy of the various resistances to the
acceptance criteria.
7.1.2 Two aspects of the response are to be distinguished and assessed separately. These are:
a) The extreme response. The maximum calculated response to the design environment
occurring at a particular instant in time, which is compared with the acceptance
criteria. See Sections 7.2 and 7.3.
b) Fatigue. The cumulative effect of stress/strain cycling, which is used to estimate the
fatigue lives of steel components (see Section 7.4).
7.1.3 For typical jack-up assessments, the time-varying nature of the wave loading will amplify
the quasi-static responses and must be considered. The extreme response can be assessed
either by a quasi-static analysis procedure (Section 7.2) including an inertial loadset
(Section 7.3.6) or by a more detailed dynamic analysis procedure (Section 7.3.7).
7.1.4 The dynamic amplification of the quasi-static response may not be significant for a given
set of location parameters. The magnitude of the dynamic response is primarily
influenced by the amount of wave energy at or near the natural period of the jack-up. The
distribution of wave energy is at a maximum at the peak wave period and reduces for
other periods. Thus the single most important parameter in the determination of the
dynamic amplification of responses is the separation of the natural period of the jack-up
from the peak period of the wave spectrum. Generally a large separation will produce a
small dynamic amplification. As the separation decreases, the dynamic amplification will
increase. These conclusions may be modified by effects such as wave-load cancellation
and wave-current induced harmonics.
7.1.5 For many applications, the dynamic amplification may be determined using a simple, but
empirical, method. This simple method is detailed in Section 7.3.6.1. Caution is advised
when relying solely on results using this simple method. Specific guidance on the
limitations of the method is given in Section 7.3.6.1.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Because of its simplicity, the method detailed in Section 7.3.6.1 is recommended for an
initial evaluation of the dynamic amplification. If the dynamic amplification is
determined to be relatively small (see Section 7.3.6.1), or, if acceptance criteria are met,
then random dynamic analysis is not required.
7.1.6 For many applications the dynamic effects may be included through the addition of an
inertialloadset (see Section 7.3.6.1) to the environmental loads in a quasi-static analysis
procedure. In this approach the inertial loadset may be determined using a simplified
model of the jack-up. An appropriate detailed model of the jack-up may then be used to
determine the detailed responses when the inertial loadset is applied together with the
quasi-static environmental loads.
7.1.7 Appropriate combinations of gravity loads, wave/current loads and wind loads shall be
applied as required by the acceptance criteria in Section 8. Load application is described
in Section 5.7. Section 5.1 requires that the analysis is carried out for a range of
environmental headings with respect to the unit such that the most onerous loading(s) for
each major type of element in the structural system is(are) determined. The checks cover:
Load Component
1 L no.e"
Limit State Check Section Response Parameters(s)
D E Dn I
min max
Strength of elements 8.1 Element load vectors" Y y+ Y Y Y
Overturning 8.2 Overturning moment 5 5 Y Y
stability Stabilizing moment Y Y
Foundation capacity: 8.3
- preload 8.3.1 Vertical leg reaction Y Y Y Y
- sliding 8.3.1 Vertical & Horizontal Y Y Y Y
leg reactions
- bearing 8.3.213 Vertical, Horizontal Y y6 y6 Y Y
(& moment) leg reactions
- displacement 8.3.4 Leg footing displacements Y y6 y6 Y Y
and reactions
Horizontal deflection 8.4 Hull displacement. Y y" Y" Y Y
Holding system loads 8.5 Holding system loads vectors Y yo Y" y y
where D, L, E and Dn are defined in the glossary at the end of section 7. •
Notes:
1. In all instances the responses are evaluated including the effects of deformation under dead loads (hull
sag) and large displacement (P-~) effects.
2. Placed at most onerous center of gravity position.
3. The effects of leg offset to be added after global response analYSis (see Section 5.4).
4. Consider minimum live (variable) load if this is more onerous.
5. Must be included in response calculation so P-~ effects are included.
I
6. Worst case combination required.
7.2 Quasi-Static Extreme Response with Inertial Loadset
7.2.1 The most common method of analysis adopted for the determination of extreme
responses is the deterministic, quasi-static wave analysis. Such an analysis shall be
carried out in accordance with all relevant requirements of Sections 3 to 6. The
maximum wave loading is determined by 'stepping' the maximum wave through the
structure. The maximum wave is defined in Section 3.5.1.2 and the methodology
Rev 2, Jan 2002
for calculating the wave loading is described in Section 4.3. Various methods for
determining the inertialloadset are given in Section 7.3.6. Load cases and combinations
are discussed in Section 7.1.7.
7.2.2 The spudcan-foundation interface should normally be modeled as a pin joint. The
inclusion of a degree of fixity is to be justified on a case by case basis. If foundation
fixity is included it should generally be represented by a combination of horizontal,
vertical and rotational springs (which may be coupled) at the spudcan, rather than by a
rotational spring alone. (See also Sections 5.3, 6.3.4 and 7.3.5.2).
7.3.1 Factors Governing Dynamics
Dynamic amplification of the structural response must be taken into account (see Figure
7.1).
Determination of dynamic response requires the incorporation of two separate items in

the analysis:
a) The dynamic characteristics of the structural system formed by the jack-up on its
foundation,
b) The characteristics of the environmental excitation.
7.3.2 The Structural System
7.3.2.1 The characteristics of the structural system are governed by the following aspects:
a) The mass and mass distribution of the jack-up.

This includes structural mass, mass of equipment and variable load on board, added
mass due to the surrounding water and marine growth (if applicable), etc. The
magnitudes and effective centers of mass of the various mass contributions are to be
accurately determined.
b) The overall (global) structural stiffness.

This includes stiffness contributions from bending, shear deformation and axial
straining of the legs, the leg to hull connections, the hull and the spudcan-foundation
interface (if applicable).
c) The damping.
Damping contributions arise from the structural components and their connections,
the water surrounding the legs and the soil underneath/around the spudcans. For
further discussion of damping refer to Section 7.3.7.
7.3.2.2 The jack-up on its foundation represents a multi degree-of-freedom system. If the
dynamic behavior is to be investigated in some detail it should also be modeled as such.
The model may contain a number of nonlinear elements, notably the leg to hull
connections and the spudcan-foundation interfaces. The influence of gravity (P-LVEuler)
on the effective sway stiffness should be considered (see Section 5.5).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Detennine highest newel Datemire peak ~iod. Te •

period of jack-t.p. Tn' of wave spectrun for extreme
See SectIon 7.3.5 se8State ard T!I&&' the period
associated wlm-the lIBl(ilUll
~ (sections 3.5.1.2 &3.5.3)
Perf0l'Il randall
d\lr&nic analysis
See section 7.3.7
Use !DOl' method to Nont inear tine

detemrine ~riodic DAF darain sinulation
fl'Clll.TI'I ai-d O.9T .
see :;ection 7.3 •. g1
AccOU'lting for non- Analyse time series

gaussian effects use ard use ..,
means and stardard appropriate method
deviations to to directly predict:
estimate:
Aj:pI.y to 8R:,rqJdate CaJP.:lre with ~;

structural rix!et wi th stat IC respcinSe fran
WIM:/current & wird sane procectJre wi th
loads in CfJIISi -static zero 118SSeS. Obtain
a"lBlysis procedJ-e. inertial loadset so
that .standard CfJiIS;·
statIc responses are
arplifiecl by sane
I f necessary. 8A'l Y factor as randan 1f necessary, aj:pl Y
nlSUlts to mre (J.IaS i-stat i C responses results to mere
deta; led mdel to detailed IIlIOdel to
obtain finaL results obtain final results
ST(P ST(P
Jack·L.p Jack'~ not
suitable for suitable for
this site this site
1 The selected responSe wi LL nomally be base shear. This is usually detennined fr.an a siaple structural natel ard
2 an edditiorel ~i-static analysis is ~irecl to include partial load tac;tors & to determine detailed results.
If this path is adopted, the appl icati~ of partial lead factors my be difficult.
Figure 7.1: Recommended approach to determine extreme dynamic responses

Rev 2, Jan 2002
Due to the fact that the mass of the hull dominates the mass distribution, the global
dynamic behavior of the jack-up may in some cases be determined from an idealized
single degree-of-freedom system (see Section 7.3.6.1).
Structural modeling at various levels of complexity is discussed in Section 5.6.
7.3.3 The Excitation
7.3.3.1 The characteristics of the environmental excitation are controlled by the fluctuating
nature of the environmental factors - wind, current and waves. Currents change slowly
compared with the natural periods at which jack-ups may oscillate and may hence be
considered to be a steady phenomenon. Variations in wind velocity cover a wide range of
periods, but the main wind energy is associated with periods which are considerably
longer than the natural periods of jack-up oscillations. Therefore, in connection with
jack-ups, the wind may generally be represented as a steady flow of air. The periods of
waves typically lie between some 2-3 sec and some 20 sec. Since typical jack-up natural
periods fall within this range, the primary source of excitation is from waves.
Sea waves are generally not regular but random in nature unless swell is predominant.
This has important implications which should be considered for both the dynamic
excitation and the resulting dynamic response.
As waves and currents interact these two environmental factors should be considered in
combination when generating time varying hydrodynamic drag forces according to
Section 4.3.
7.3.3.2 For the simplified dynamic analysis method of Section 7.3.6.1 based on a regular-wave
deterministic quasi-static analysis the wave period is chosen to be 0.9Tp where Tp is the
peak period of the wave spectrum for the extreme sea state.
For random analyses (see Sections 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.7) the most probable peak period (Tp)
of the wave spectrum for the extreme seastate will normally be selected when a 2
parameter Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is used (Hs and Tp from site specific data and
y = 1 in Section 3.5.3). If a JONSWAP spectrum is used it is recommended that the peak
period is considered to vary between plus and minus one standard deviation from the
most probable peak period (Tp).
Where the jack-up is sensitive to the wave period it is recommended that the range
described in Section 3.5.1.2 or 3.5.3 is investigated as appropriate.
In a deterministic calculation waves with a period close to the natural period of the jack-
up will give the largest dynamic amplification. It is therefore recommended that the wave
associated with the highest natural period of the jack-up is also investigated.
7.3.4 The Dynamic Analysis
A flow chart indicating the recommended dynamic analysis approach is shown in Figure
7.1.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
An initial estimate of the dynamic amplification can be obtained using the empirical
methods described in Section 7.3.6.1.
Techniques for performing random dynamic analyses can be categorized as frequency

domain methods or time domain (simulation) methods or hybrids thereof; see Section
7.3.7.
7.3.5 The Natural Period(s)
7.3.5.1 The natural period of the jack-up on its foundation in the fundamental (or first) mode of
vibration is an important indicator of the degree of dynamic response to be expected.
The first and second vibrational modes are nearly always the surge and sway modes. The
natural periods of these vibrational modes are usually close together; which of the two is
the higher depends on which direction is less stiff. Where the period varies with
environmental heading, care should be taken that the period used is applicable to the
environmental direction being considered in the analysis. The third vibrational mode is
normally a torsional mode, the three-dimensional effects of which may be important, in
particular for environmental attack directions where the legs and hence wave loads are
not symmetric about the direction of wave propagation.
7.3.5.2 If available, a finite element structural model containing the mass and stiffness properties
of the jack-up may be used to obtain the various natural periods and mode shapes. This
model should include the stiffness of the legs, hull and hull/leg connections according to
Sections 5.6.4 to 5.6.6. If a finite element model containing only stiffness properties is
available, then the global sway stiffness for the required headings may be determined by
applying lateral unit loads to the hull.
Normally the foundation will be considered pinned. This assumption may however be
unconservative for situations in which:
1. The structure natural period is within a cancellation region of the base shear transfer
function (see Commentary Section C7.4).
2. Significant foundation nonlinearities are expected at higher loading levels typical of

dominant wave frequencies but not at lower loading levels typical of inertial
frequencies.
If either of these situations occur, and detailed foundation modeling is not available, it is
recommended that the DAF's be calculated with fixity included and are then applied to a
pinned model for response calculations.
Where the foundation stiffness is included, lateral and vertical translational springs
should be included together with the rotational springs. fu any case the limitations on
foundation loading according to Section 6.3.4 must be verified.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7.3.5.3 If such a capability is not available, the fundamental mode period may be estimated from
the system described by:
an equivalent mass representing the mass of the jack-up and its distribution as
referred to in Section 7.3.2; the equivalent mass is equal to the mass of the hull plus a
contribution from the mass of the legs, including added mass, and is located at the
center of gravity of the hull.
an equivalent spring representing the combined effect of the various stiffnesses

mentioned in Section 7.3.2.
The period is determined from the following equation applied to one leg:
Tn = 2n ~(Me / Ke)
where;
Tn = highest (or first mode) natural period.
Me = effective mass associated with one leg.
M M
= ~ +MIa+ _l_b
N 2
M hull = full mass of hull including maximum variable load.
N = number of legs.
Mia = mass of leg above lower guide (in the absence of a clamping mechanism)
or above the center of the clamping mechanism.
Mlb = mass of leg below the point described for MIa, including added mass for
the submerged part of the leg ignoring spudcan. The added mass may be
determined as Aep(C Me - 1) per unit length of one leg (for definitions of
=
Ae and CMe see Section 4.6.6); p mass density of water.
Ke = effective stiffness associated with one leg (for derivation, refer to
Commentary).
When the soil rotational stiffness Krs at the spudcan-foundation interface is zero this may
be re-written:
Krs = rotational spring stiffness at spudcan-foundation interface.

Rev 2, Jan 2002
Krh rotational stiffness representing leg to hull connection stiffness (see below).
Fr = factor to account for hull bending stiffness.
1
=
{1+ ::}
IH = representative second moment of area of the hull girder joining two legs
about a horizontal axis normal to the line of environmental action.
E = Young's modulus for steel.
A = axial area of one leg (equals sum of effective chord areas, including a
contribution from rack teeth - see Note to Section 5.6.4).
As = effective shear area of one leg (see Figure 5.1).
I = second moment of area of the leg (see Figure 5.1), including a contribution
from rack teeth (see Note to Section 5.6.4).
Y = distance between center of one leg and line joining centers of the other two
legs (3 leg unit).
= distance between windward and leeward leg rows for direction under
consideration (4 leg unit)
Fg = geometric factor.
= 1.125 (3 leg unit), 1.0 (4 leg unit)
Fy = factor to account for vertical soil stiffness, K ys , and vertical leg-hull
connection stiffness, KYh (see below).
1
=
EA EA}
{1+--+--
LKvs LKvh
Fh = factor to account for horizontal soil stiffness, Khs , and horizontal leg-hull
connection stiffness, Khb (see below).
1
=
EAs EAs}
{1+ 2.6LK +--"--2.6LK
hs hh
L = length of leg from the seabed reaction point (see Section 5.2.1) to the point
separating MIa and Mib (see above).
P = the mean force due to vertical fixed and variable loads acting on one leg.
MhuIlg
= N
g = acceleration due to gravity.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
PE = Euler buckling load of one leg.
= a 2EI
a = the minimum positive non-zero value of aL satisfying:
(Krs + Krb )aEI }
tan(aL) = { (aE1)2 - (KrsKrh)
Thus:
= = =
when Krs 0 and Krh 00, aL TCl2 and hence:
n 2 EI
PE=--
4L2
= = =
when Krs 00 and Krh 00, aL 1t and hence
n 2 EI
PE = - L2
-
The hull to leg connection springs, K rh , Kvh and Khh represent the interaction of the leg
with the guides and supporting system and account for local member flexibility and frame
action. They should be computed with respect to the point separating MIa and M Ib , as
described above. The following approximations may be applied:
Khh = 00
Kvh = effective stiffness due to the series combination of all vertical pinion
fixation system stiffnesses, allowing for combined action with shock-
orl
pads, where fitted.
Unit with fixation system:
Krh = combined rotational stiffness of fixation systems on one leg.
= Fnh2kf
where;
Fn = 0.5, three chord leg; = 1.0, four chord leg
h = distance between chord centers.
kf = combined vertical stiffness of all fixation system components on one
chord.
Unit without fixation system:
Krh = rotational stiffness allowing for pinion stiffness, leg shear deformation
and guide flexibility.
= Fnh2kj+ _ _ _ d 2 __
k u=--_
1 + (2.6k u d lEAs)
where;
h = distance between chord centers (opposed pinion chords) or pinion pitch
points (single rack chords).
I
kj = combined vertical stiffness of all jacking system components on one
chord.
d = distance between upper and lower guides.
ku = total lateral stiffness of upper guides with respect to lower guides.
As = effective shear area of leg.
7.3.5.3 The above equations for estimating the fundamental natural period are approximate and
ignore the following effects:
more realistic representation of possible fixity at the spudcan-foundation interface in

the form of (coupled) horizontal, vertical and rotational spring stiffnesses.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
three dimensional influences of the system as compared with the two-dimensional
single leg model.
7.3.5.4 Due to uncertainty in the parameters affecting the natural period the calculated natural
period(s) will also be uncertain. The natural period(s) used in the dynamic analysis
should be selected such that a realistic but conservative value of the dynamic response is
obtained for the particular application envisaged. Care should be taken to ensure that the
maximum dynamic amplification is not selected as coincident with a cancellation period
causing minimum environmental loading. The potential for increased response due to
shortcrested waves should be considered (see Section 7.3.7.5). For further details refer to
the Commentary Section C7.4 and Figure C7.1.
7.3.6 Inertial Loadset Approaches
In inertial loadset approaches the dynamic response is represented in a global quasi -static
response model by either a distributed inertialloadset or an equivalent point load applied
at the hull center of gravity. The inertial loadset may be derived from the simple
approach described in Section 7.3.6.1 or from the more complex methods discussed in
Sections 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.6.3.
7.3.6.1 The classical SDOF analogy
This representation assumes that the jack-up on its foundation may be modeled as an
equivalent mass-spring-damper mechanism; see Section 7.3.2. The (highest) natural
period of the vibrational modes may be determined as described in Section 7.3.5. The
torsional mode and corresponding three-dimensional effects cannot be included in this
representation.
The single degree-of-freedom (SnOF) method is fundamentally empirical because (1) the
wave-current loading does not occur at the mass center and (2) the loading is non-
periodic (random) and non-linear.
It should also be noted that all global and detailed response parameters are not equally
amplified. The method described below will generally lead to a reasonable
approximation of the jack-up's real behavior and has been calibrated against more
rigorous methods. The following cautions are noted when using the SnOF method:
1. If the ratio of the jack-up natural period to the wave excitation period, Q, is less than
0.5 and the current is 'relatively small' the SDOF method should give reasonably
accurate results when compared to a more rigorous analysis.
2. If Q is greater than 0.5, the relative position of the jack-up natural period within the
base shear transfer function should be checked. If the natural period falls near a wave
force peak, then the SDOF method may be unconservative because it ignores forcing
at other than the full wave excitation period. Note that the calculation of natural
periods should include a range of periods to account for a reasonable estimate of
I
foundation fixity (see Section 7.3.5.2).
3. The SDOF method may be unconservative for cases-with relatively high currents. If
the results of the assessment are close to the acceptance criteria further detailed
analysis is recommended.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
The ratio of (the amplitudes of the) dynamic to the quasi-static response as a function of
frequency (<0) or period (T) of steady state, periodic and sinusoidal excitation is
calculated as the classical dynamic amplification factor (DAF):
where;
Wave Excitation frequency <0
Q = -
Jack - up natural frequency <On
Jack - up natural period
= Wave excitation period = TnT
~ = Damping ratio or fraction of critical damping
= (% Critical Damping)/lOO, $ 0.07.
T = O.9Tp.
Tp = most probable peak wave period.
Tn = the jack-up natural period as derived in 7.3.5. I
The damping parameter ~ in this model represents the total of all damping contributions
(structural, hydrodynamic and soil damping). For the evaluation of extreme response
using the SDOF method a value not exceeding 0.07 is recommended.
The calculated DAF from the SDOF method is used to estimate an inertial loadset which
represents the contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static response in
accordance with Figure 7.1. This inertial loadset should be determined as follows and
applied at the hull (center of gravity) in the down-wind direction:
Fin = (DAP - 1) BSAmplitude
where;
Fin = Magnitude of the inertial loadset for use in conjunction with the
SDOF method.
BSAmpIitude = Amplitude of quasi-static Base Shear over one wave cycle.
= (BS(Q _S)Max - BS(Q -S)Min)/2
BS(Q _S)Max = Maximum quasi-static wave/current Base Shear.
BS(Q _S)Min = Minimum quasi-static wave/current Base Shear.
Note: The above equation is part of a calibrated procedure and should not be altered. A
more general inertialloadset procedure, using the results from random analysis,
is described in Section 7.3.6.3.
7.3.6.2 Other SDOF approaches
An alternative use of the SDOF method is to apply the entire DAP function for all
frequencies (periods), rather than a single point DAF at one frequency. The closed-form
frequency domain solution given in C7.B.2.2 of the Commentary is one such approach.
This method reflects the random wave plus current excitation more correctly. Execution
of this procedure is as per the relevant parts of Section 7.3.7.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7.3.6.3 Inertialloadset based on random analysis
The inertial loadset may be derived from random frequency or time domain analysis
according to the recommendations of Section 7.3.7. The inertialloadset should be such
that it increases the responses of the deterministic quasi-static analysis by the same ratios
as those determined between the random quasi-static (zero mass) analysis and the random
dynamic analysis (see Figure C7.B.l) In such cases the structural model (used for
dynamic analysis) may be simplified and does not need to contain all the structural
details, but will nevertheless be a multi degree-of-freedom model. The approach to the
modeling and determination of the inertial loadset is described further in the
Commentary, Section C7.B.2.
The inertial loadset can be determined to model the effect of dynamic amplification in a
more realistic manner as required. The simplest alternative uses a single point force to
match inertial overturning moment effects as shown in the Commentary, Section C7.B.2.
However the use of a distributed inertial loadset is considered more representative and
will therefore provide a more accurate description of the component dynamic
amplification effects as well as global response amplification. The distribution of the
loadset is based on the fundamental sway modes and mass distribution. Note that the use
of a distributed inertial loadset is recommended for units where a significant proportion
of the total mass (including fluid added mass) acts at a location other than the hull center
of gravity. The mathematical procedure for calculation of the distributed loadset is given
in Figure 7.2. A brief description of the calculation process is as follows:
Step 1
Perform random response analysis using a wave attack direction along the selected main
axis (x or y) and establish the global response dynamic amplification factors for base
shear and overturning moment, whereby the dynamic amplification factors are defined as
DAF3 = MP:MEdynlMP:MEstatic.
Step 2
Establish a set of two simultaneous equations using combinations of 2-D mode shapes,
nodal masses and unknown modal scalar, which match the inertial base shear and
moment along the selected main axis. Solve this equation set to determine the two modal
multipliers.
Step 3
Establish the (2-D) inertial loadset Fin by a combination of the selected structural mode
shapes (<PI, <P2), scalar multipliers (a., P) and nodal masses (M), i.e. Fin = a. <PlM + P<P2M.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
JACK-UP
L
7f-_ _ _.• Mass (MJ)
Lever 3ID1 or
massj=hj
+
_~_ _..F;...;;.o~oting Level
Mass First bending mode (<PI) Second bending mode (CIl:,) Distribt:ted inertial
distribution scaled by C1 scaled by ~ Loadset (Fit!.)
Figure 7.2 - Procedure for calculation of distributed inertialloadset

(2-D response)
7.3.7 Detailed Dynamic Analysis Methods
Fully detailed random dynamic analysis will be necessary indicated in Figure 7.1.
Random dynamic analysis may be performed in the time or in the frequency domain.
7.3.7.1 The waves may be modeled as a linear random superposition model which is fully
described by the wave spectrum (see Section 3.5.3). The statistics of the underlying
random process are gaussian and fully known theoretically. An empirical modification
around the free surface may be needed to account for free surface effects. This, together
with the fact that drag forces are a nonlinear (squared) transformation of wave kinematics,
makes the hydrodynamic force excitation always nonlinear. As a result, the random
excitation is non-gaussian. The statistics of such a process are generally not known
theoretically, but the extremes are generally larger than the extremes of a corresponding
gaussian random process. For a detailed investigation of the dynamic behavior of a jack-
up the non-gaussian effects must be included. A number of procedures for doing this are
presented in the Commentary.
7.3.7.2 The spudcan-foundation interface should normally be modeled as a pin Jomt in the
absence of justifiable site-specific foundation fixity information, but see Section 7.3.5.2.
If foundation fixity is included, it should be represented by a combination of horizontal,

vertical and rotational springs. Coupling of the springs is preferable. In any case the
limitations on foundation loading according to Section 6.3.4 must be verified.
7.3.7.3 When the random displacements of the submerged parts are small and the velocities are
significant with respect to the water particle velocities the damping is not well
represented by the relative velocity formulation in Morison's equation, which will tend to
overestimate the damping and underpredict the response. A criterion for determining the
applicability of the relative velocity formulation is given in Section 4.3.2.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7.3.7.4 Table 7.1 summarizes appropriate percentages of global critical damping for the various
damping sources which should be summed to provide the total global damping as a
percentage of critical damping.
Damping source Global damping not to exceed

(% of critical damping)
Structure, holding
system, etc. 2%
Foundation 2% or 0%(1)
Hydrodynamic 3% or 0%(2)
Notes: 1. Where a non-linear foundation model is adopted the hysteresis foundation

damping will be accounted for directly and should not therefore be included
in the global damping.
2. In cases where the relative velocity formulation may be used (a = 1 in

Section 4.3.2) the hydrodynamic damping will be accounted for directly and
should not therefore be included in the global damping.
Table 7.1 - Recommended damping from various sources
7.3.7.5 The effects of directionality and wave spreading may be considered in any dynamic
analysis. It is recommended that a comparison be made between the Base Shear Transfer
Function (BSTF) for the chosen 2-D (long crested/unspread) analysis direction and the 3-
D (short crested/spread) BSTF to determine whether the selected direction is
unconservative. Optimally the direction of the 2-D seastate should be chosen to obtain a
match with the 3-D BSTF for the entire wave spectrum. If this is not possible the match
between the spread and unspread BSTFs should be good at the natural period.
A 3-D BSTF, H 3D, can be generated from a set of 2-D BSTFs, H2D, by the following
expression:
2ft
f[H 2D (0l,9)Y cos 2n(9)d9

o
where:
Ol = Wave excitation frequency

9 = Angle between 2-D BSTF and dominant direction of 3-D BSTF
n = Power constant of spreading function
~ 2.0 for fatigue analysis
:;::: 4.0 for extreme analysis
A simple approximation to the incorporation of wave spreading into inertial load

calculations is to perform a 2-D analysis with the wave approach angle which is between
the two approach angles which give the maximum and minimum forces at the
cancellation and reinforcement points (see Figure C7.1 in the Commentary).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7.3.7.6 Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively identify the most important factors associated with each
type of analysis method and with each approach to detenruning the extreme responses.
Further details of the methods are provided in the Commentary.
7.3.8 Acceptance Criteria
The results of a dynamic extreme response analysis shall be assessed against the
acceptance criteria described in Section 8. The required load factors should be introduced
when combining the component loads into total load combinations.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Method Recommendations
Frequency Consider linearization assumptions with
Domain respect to:
- wave-current loading (quadratic dependence
on particle velocity and finite wave ht).
- structural non-linearity.
Generate random sea from at least 200
components and use divisions of equal
frequency.
Note: fewer frequency components may be used
I
provided that the divisions are shown to be
sufficiently small around the wave period,
the natural period & periods associated
with reinforcement and cancellation.
Time Generate random sea from at least 200 components
Domain
and use divisions of generally equal energy. It is
recommended that smaller energy divisions are used in
the high frequency portion of the spectrum, which will
generally contain the reinforcement and cancellation
frequencies. Each wavelet should be taken to disperse
with its own linear dispersion relationship [12]
Check validity of wave simulation:
- correct mean wave elevation
=
- standard deviation (Hs 14) ± 1%
- -0.03 < skewness < 0.03
- 2.9 < kurtosis < 3.1
=
- Max crest elevation (Hsf4)."j{2In(N)} -5% to
+7.5%
where N is the number of cycles in the time series
being qualified, N == Duration 1 T z
Integration time-step less than the smaller of:

Ti20 or T/20
where;
Tz = the zero-upcrossing period of the wave
spectrum
=
Tn the jack-up natural period
(unless it can be shown that a larger time-step leads
to no significant change in results)
Avoid transients in 'run-in' (~100 secs).
Ensure simulation length OK for method chosen to
determine the Most Probable Maximum Extreme
(MPME) response(s).
Note: The MPME is defined in Table 7.3
Table 7.2 - Recommendations for application of dynamic

analysis methods (see Commentary)
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Method Recommendations
General Define the Most Probable Maximum Extreme
(MPME) as the extreme with a 63% chance of
exceedence (typically this is the mode or
highest point on the probability density
function (PDF)).This is approximately
equivalent to the 111000 highest peak level
in a 3-hour stonn.
Frequency Use mean & standard deviation to determine
Domain drag-inertia parameter and use Figure C7.B.6
in Commentary Section C7.B.2.1. II
Time Use mean & standard deviation to determine
Domain drag-inertia parameter and use Figure C7.B.5
or Figure C7.B.6 in Commentary Section
C7.B.2.1. Simulation time of at least 60
minutes usually required to obtain stable
standard deviation.
or
Fit Weibull distribution to distribution,
for 3-hour probability level. Take results
as average of MPME's from;;::: 5 simulations.
Each input wave simulation to be of
sufficient length for recommendations of
Table 7.2 to be met (usually at least 60
minutes). See Commentary C7.B.2.3.
or
Use multiple 3-hour simulations and use
Gumbel distribution on the extreme from each
simulation. Sufficient simulations (usually
at least 10) are required to obtain stable
MPME of responses. See Commentary C7.B.2.4.
or
Use Winterstein's Hermite polynomial model,
with improvements by Jensen if Kurtosis> 5.
Simulation of sufficient duration to provide
stable skewness and kurtosis of responses
(nonnally in excess of 180 minutes). See
Commentary Section C7.B.2.5.
Table 7.3 - Recommendations for determining MPME (see Commentary)

Rev 2, Jan 2002
7.4 Fatigue
7.4.1 General
The fatigue of jack-ups should be considered for all new locations and operations. Jack-
ups are mobile structures, generally operating in a wide range of water depths, therefore
the location of the fatigue sensitive areas may vary (see Section 7.4.3). This means that
fatigue damage at any member/joint or other component may not occur equally
throughout the life of the unit and tends to complicate the fatigue problem.
If the original analysis carried out for the unit demonstrates that lives of critical
components are adequate then a unit may not require a separate analysis if on location for
a period of less than one year provided that adequate proof from a recent inspection exists
showing that the unit is behaving as originally predicted.
If no original analysis and/or inspection proof is in existence then a separate analysis may
be required for all operations in excess of one year. In extreme cases six months may be
more appropriate if this period contains the rough winter season. Alternatively a recent
assessment inspection, or proof that such an inspection (including detailed NDT) has
been carried out may serve as a demonstration of the adequacy of the unit.
7.4.2 Fatigue Life Requirements
A fatigue analysis, if undertaken, should ensure that all structural components have
(remaining) fatigue lives of more than the greater of four times the duration of the
assignment or 10 years. Different (reduced) fatigue life requirements may be justified for
certain items on a case by case basis where structural redundancy or ease of access for
inspection and repair permit.
7.4.3 Fatigue Sensitive Areas
All structural members subject to fatigue loading are to be checked in the analysis, with
emphasis on the following areas, which are likely to be the most critical. However; other
areas should also be studied if they are potentially more critical:
a) The leg members and joints in the vicinity of the upper and lower guides for the
operating leg/guide location(s).
b) The rack teeth of the chord.
c) The leg members and joints adjacent to the waterline.
d) The jack-frame/jackhouse and associated areas of the hull.
e) The leg members and joints in the vicinity of the leg to spudcan connection.
f) The spudcan to leg connection.
Records of inspections, damage and repair for the unit may provide guidance in the
selection of critical areas.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
As mentioned the fatigue analysis should consider all loading conditions that may
occurduring the period under consideration and for items c) through f) the cumulative
damage due to transit loadings should also be included.
7.4.4 General Description of Analysis
Suitable approaches to the analysis may be found In reference [13]. Equivalent

approaches may be applied.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - DETERMINATION OF RESPONSES
A = Equivalent axial area of a leg (see Figure 5.1), including contribution from rack
teeth (see note to Section 5.6.4).
As = Effective shear area of one leg.
BS = Base Shear.
d = Distance between upper and lower guides.
D = Self weight and non varying loads.
DAF = Dynamic Amplification Factor.
Dn = Inertial loads due to Dynamic response.
E = Environmental loads.
E = Young's modulus for steel.
Fg = Geometric factor
= 1.125 (3 leg unit), 1.0 (4 leg unit)
Fh = Factor to account for horizontal soil stiffness, Khs , and horizontal leg-hull
connection stiffness, K hh .
Fin = Magnitude of inertialloadset.
Fn = 0.5, three chord leg; = 1.0, four chord leg
Fr = Factor to account for hull bending stiffness.
Fv = Factor to account for vertical soil stiffness, Kvs, and vertical leg-hull connection
stiffness, Kvh .
g = Acceleration due to gravity.
h = Distance between chord centers or pinion pitch points. I
!LIe! = The wave height to be used for detenninistic waveforce calculations, allowing for
conservatisms in the theoretical predictions of higher order wave theories.
= 1.60 Hsrp
Hmax = The maximum detenninistic wave height.
= 1.86 Hsrp , generally.
= 1.75 Hsrp, in Tropical Revolving Storm areas.
Hs = Significant wave height (meters), including depth/asymmetry correction,
according to Section 3.5.1.1.
Hsrp = The assessment return period significant wave height for a 3 hour stonn.
H2D = 2-D base shear transfer function.
H3D = 3-D base shear transfer function.
I = Second moment of area of the leg (see Figure 5.1) including contribution from
rack teeth (see note to Section 5.6.4).
IH = Representative second moment of area of the hull girder joining two legs about a
horizontal axis normal to the line of environmental action.
kf = Combined vertical stiffness of all fixation system components on one chord.
kj = Combined vertical stiffness of all jacking system components on one chord.
ku = Total lateral stiffness of upper guides with respect to lower guides.
Ke = The effective stiffness associated with one leg.
Khh = Horizontal stiffness of leg-hull connection, generally infinite.
Khs = Horizontal stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
Krh = Rotational stiffness representing the leg-hull connection.
Krs = Rotational stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
Kvh = Vertical stiffness of leg-hull connection.
Kvs = Vertical stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
L = Variable loads.
L = Length of leg from the seabed reaction point (see Section 5.2.1) to the point
separating MIa and M Ib .
Rev 2, Jan 2002
7 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - DETERMINATION OF RESPONSES (Continued)
M = Nodal masses.
Me = Effective mass associated with one leg.
MhulJ = Full mass of hull, including variable load.
MIa = Mass of a leg above lower guide (in the absence of a clamping mechanism) or
above the center of the clamping mechanism.
M Ib = Mass of leg below the point described for MIa, including added mass for the
submerged part of the leg.
MPME = Most Probable Maximum Extreme response(s). The extreme response with a
63% chance of exceedence; approximately equal to the 1/1000 highest peak
level in a 3-hour storm.
n = Power constant of spreading function.
~ 2.0 for fatigue analysis.
~ 4.0 for extreme analysis.
N = Number of legs.
N = Number of cycles.
P = The mean force due to vertical dead weight and variable load acting on one
leg.
MhuI1g
=
N
PE = Euler buckling load of one leg.
= a 2EI
T = O.9Tp •
Tass = Wave period associated with Hmax (also used with lLiet).
Tn = Natural period of jack-up (subject to the precautions of Section 7.3.5.4).
Tp = Peak period associated with Hsrp (also used with Hs).
Tz = Zero-upcrossing period of the wave spectrum.
y = Distance between center of one leg and line joining centers of the other two
legs (3 leg unit).
= Distance between windward and leeward leg rows for direction under
consideration (4 leg unit).
= The minimum positive non-zero value of aL satisfying:
(Krs + Krh )aEI }
tan(aL)= { --~2--~---
( uBI) - (K rs Krh )
a = Scalar multiplier used in establishing 2-D Fin.
13 = Scalar multiplier used in establishing 2-D Fin'
<j>},<j>2 = Structural mode shapes.
Q = wiroo. =TniT.
P = Mass density of water.
e = Angle between 2-D BSTF and dominant direction of 3-D BSTF.
<0 = Wave excitation frequency = 27r1T.
<On = Jack-up natural frequency = 27rlTn.
~ = Damping ratio or fraction of critical damping.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The acceptance checks in the following sections cover:

Structural strength (Section 8.1),
Overturning stability (Section 8.2),
Foundation capacity (preload, bearing, sliding displacement and punch-through)
(Section 8.3),
Horizontal deflections (Section 8.4),
Loads in the holding system (Section 8.5),
Loads in the hull (Section 8.6) and
The condition of the unit (Section 8.7).
In each check the factored resistance should equal or exceed the factored load. Thus the
general form of the check is:
L(Factored loads)
-.:.....-----.:.-.$ 1.0
Factored resistance
For some checks, where load and resistance vectors are considered, it may be necessary to
address the interaction between the n different components. The form of the check then
becomes:
~ { L(Factored loads in component i) }
~fn $1.0
i=1 Factored resistance to component i
The required load factors are as follows:
YI = 1.00 - Applies to non-varying weight loads (D)
Y2 = 1.00 - Applies to maximum or minimum variable loads (L) applicable to
check being carried out
Y3 = 1.15 - Applies to environmental loads (E); (provisional - see Section
1.8);
II
Y4 = 1.00 - Applies to dynamic loads (Dn) in combination with Y3
It is assumed that the jack-up is built to recognized standards, and has been maintained as
required to continue to meet those standards (see Sections 2.4.2 and 8.7). Any
deterioration should be taken into account in the assessment.
8.1 Structural Strength Check
Note: Figure 8.1 provides a flowchart for member strength assessment.
8.1.1 Introduction
8.1.1.1 Code Basis

The main basis for the structural strength check is the AISC 'Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings' [14]. The AISC LRFD
specification has been interpreted and, in some cases, modified for use in the assessment
of mobile jack-up unit structures. Interpretation of the code has been necessary to enable
a straight-forward method to be presented for the assessment of beam-columns of non 'I'
section. Development of the code has been necessary in two areas as described below:
a) A method has been established for dealing with sections constructed of steels with
different material properties.
b) A method has been established for the assessment of beam columns under biaxial
bending to overcome a conservatism which has been identified in the standard AISC
LRFD equations.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
!EMlER STRENGTH
ASSES9ENT
USING FACTCRB> LOADS
fail
fail
.......- - - - - - - - - - '.......-i Assess to 8.1.5
T 8~1.4.2
pass 8.1.4.3a) ca!p8Ct &

ncu:a!p8Ct secti oos
8.1.4.3b)
~---------t slerder sectioos
T 8.1.4.4
ASSESS TO 8.1.4.1
8.1.4.5
8.1.4.6a)
........--1 Ca!p8Ct sectioos
L..-_ _. - - - _ - - - '
8.1.4.6b) non-
L -_ _.---_---'
"'-'--1 Ca!p8Ct sections
fail
8.1.4.6c)
'-----......------1 slerder sections
8.1.4.7
Figure 8.1: Flow chart for member strength assessment

Rev 2, Jan 2002
One particular type of member geometry which is not covered at all by AISC LRFD is the
high Rlt ratio tubular which usually has ring frame and/or longitudinal stiffeners.
Recommendations for checking such members are given in Section 8.1.5 where the user
is referred to an applicable code and guidance is given on suitable load and resistance
factors.
The resistance factors used in the AISC LRFD specification have been adopted.
In addition to checking the strength of members, it may be necessary to check the strength
of joints between members. Recommendations for joint checking are given in Section
8.1.6 where the user is referred to an applicable code and guidance is given on suitable
load and resistance factors.
8.1.1.2 Limitations
The structural strength check assessment described here is limited by the following
criteria:
a) The geometry of structural components and members, as defined in 8.1.2, must fall
reasonably within the categories described in that section.
b) In accordance with AISC LRFD Specification, Chapter A Para. A5, the minimum
specified yield stress of the strongest steel comprising the components and members
should not exceed:
65 ksi (448 MN/m2) if (elasto-)plastic structural analysis is used to determine the

member loads. For slender geometries plastic structural analysis is precluded,
even if the yield stress is below 65 ksi.
100 ksi (690 MN/m2) if elastic structural analysis is used to determine the member
loads.
For higher strength steels within the holding system, refer to Section 8.5.
It should also be noted that the assessment has been tailored towards the types of analysis
normally carried out for jack-ups. The detailed recommendations which follow focus
particularly on closed section brace and chord scantlings in truss type legs.
Geometries outside the limits of Sections 8.1.2 - 8.1.4 may be checked in accordance with
the recommendations of Section 8.1.5.
Notes:
1. Of necessity, many of the equations presented in Section 8.1 are dimensional. Such
equations are quoted firstly in metric units (MN, m, MN/m 2 etc.) and then in { } in
North American imperial units (kips, inches, ksi, etc.).
2. Where the member geometry may contain components of part-tubular shape it is

appropriate to consider their dimensions in terms of radius and thickness (rather than
diameter and thickness), and hence relevant equations have been converted to this
format.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
3. The AISC LRFD source equations/text are identified between [ ].
4. The terms in the equations are defined where they appear. A glossary is also
provided at the end of Section 8.
8.1.2 Definitions
8.1.2.1 Structural Members and Components
a) Structural Members
For the purposes of strength assessment, it is necessary to consider the structure as

comprised of structural members. Typically each structural member could be represented
by a single finite element in an appropriate finite element model of the structure.
Examples of members would include braces and chords in truss type legs, box or tubular
legs and plating which forms a piece of structure for which the properties can readily be
calculated.
The strengths of structural members are to be assessed according to Section 8.1.4 with the
exception of structural members exceeding any of the following provisions which should
be assessed according to Section 8.1.5.
i) A plain tubular with Rlt > 44,815IFy

{Imperial: 6,500IFy}
[Table A-F1.1]
ii) Any tubular with ring stiffeners with or without longitudinal stiffeners.
iii) Tubulars with longitudinal stiffeners where;

Rlt> 1l,3751Fy {Imperial: 1,650IFy}
[Table B5.1]
b) Structural Components
A structural component is defined as a part of a structural member (see Figure 8.2).

Typically, structural components are pieces of plating or tubulars such as the plates, split-
tubulars and rack pieces forming a jack-up chord, or the stringers on a panel. Note that it
is not always appropriate to consider fundamental structural parts as components. A plain
tubular, for example is better analyzed as a member. A component should not consist of
more than one material.
8.1.2.2 Stiffened and Unstiffened Components
A component which is stiffened along both edges is denoted a stiffened component. A

component which is supported along only one edge is denoted an unstiffened component.
Typically all the components forming parts of chord sections may be regarded as
stiffened.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.1.2.3 Compact, noncompact and slender sections
Steel sections are divided into compact sections, noncompact sections and sections with
slender compression elements. Compact sections are capable of developing a fully plastic
stress distribution before the onset of local buckling. Noncompact sections can develop
the yield stress in compression components before local buckling occurs, but will not
resist inelastic local buckling at the strain levels required for a fully plastic stress
distribution. Slender compression components buckle elastically before the yield stress is
achieved.
Where a distinction is required between these categories, appropriate limiting slenderness

ratios have been stipulated.
8.1.3 Factored Loads
Factored loads in structural components and members are to be determined in accordance

with the previous sections, using the most onerous condition for each structural
component or member.
Each structural component or member should be checked for the factored load vector Q
(Le. axial load, moments and, if applicable, shears and torsion) where;
Q =YI.D + Y2.L + Y3(E + Y4. Dn)
and
Y1 = 1.0
Y2 = 1.0
Y3 = 1.15 (provisional. see Section 1.8) II
Y4 = 1.0
D = Member load vector due to the weight of structure and non-varying loads
including:
Weight in air including appropriate solid ballast.
Equipment.
Buoyancy.
Permanent enclosed liquid.
L = Member load vector due to the maximum variable load (gravity adds to
environmental loads) or minimum variable load (gravity opposes
environmental loads) positioned at the most onerous center of gravity
location applicable to extreme conditions as specified in Section 3.2.
E = The extreme member load vector due to the assessment return period
wind, wave and current conditions (including associated large
displacement effects).
Dn = Member load vector due to the inertial loadset which represents the
contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static response as
described in Section 7.3.6 (including associated large displacement
effects).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.1.4 Assessment of Members
- excluding stiffened and high Rlt ratio tubulars
8.1.4.1 General interaction equations
Each structural member within the scope of Section 8.1.2 shall satisfy the following
conditions:
I
r n
If PulG>aPn > 0.2
I
1
P s[{ M + {M
_u_+_
(/>aPn 9
uex
lA,M nx
uey
lA,Mny
< 10
-'
[Eq. Hl-la]
else
[{ r {M n I
1
~+ Muex + ~ <10 [Eq. Hl-lb]

2(/JaPn lA,M nx lA,Mny -'
where;
Pu = applied axial load
Po = nominal axial strength determined in accordance with Section 8.1.4.2
(tension) and 8.1.4.3 (compression).
Muex,Muey = effective applied bending moment determined in accordance with Section
8.1.4.4 (tension) and 8.1.4.5 (compression).
Mox,Moy = nominal bending strength determined in accordance with Section 8.1.4.6.
G>a = Resistance factor for axial load = 0.85 for [Eq. E2.1] compression and
0.90 for tension [Eq. D1.1].
<l>b = Resistance factor for bending =0.9 [Ch. F1.2]
II = Exponent for biaxial bending, a constant dependent on the member cross
section geometry, determined as follows:
i) For purely tubular members, II = 2.0
ii) For doubly symmetric open section members, II =1.0

iii) For all other geometries, the value of II may be determined by
analysis as described in Section 8.1.4.7 but shall not be less than 1.0.
In lieu of analysis, a value of II equal to 1.0 may be used.
I
I
The interaction equations can be used in a reduced form if one or two of the three load
ratio tenns in the equation are zero.
Alternatively, the more complex interaction formulations given in Section C8.1.4.7

the Commentary may be used where applicable.
ofl
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.1.4.2 Nominal Axial Strength of a Structural Member in tension Pn
For a member comprising more than one component, the nominal tensile strength lies
between the maximum individual tensile strength of anyone component, and the sum of
all the individual tensile strengths.
The nominal tensile strength of a tension component shall be the lower value from the
following equations:
a) P ni = FyiAi
b) P ni = % FuiAi
where;
Ai = area of component
Fyi = specified minimum yield stress of component (or specified yield strength
where no yield point exists)
FUi = specified minimum tensile (ultimate) strength of component
P ni = component nominal axial tensile strength
This assumes that for members in jack-up units the net section is equal to the gross
section [Eq's. D1.1 and D1.2].
The total member nominal tensile strength shall be:

Pn =Fmin~Ai
with the resistance factor
t = 0.90 [Eq. Dl.l]
where F min is the smallest value of Fyi or %Fui of all the components.
Note: If for any component the nominal strength is significantly different from the
nominal strengths of other components, the formulation above may be conservative and
alternative rational methods may be applied. An example is given in the Commentary.
8.1.4.3 Nominal Axial Strength of a Structural Member in Compression P n
So long as local buckling of the components of a member is not the limiting state, the
member can be treated for global loads only. Should local buckling dominate, the loads
in the components must be considered. Therefore, in determining the nominal axial
strength of a member in compression, a local buckling check must first be applied.
Check: Local buckling
The structural components which make up the cross section of a compact or noncompact
section must satisfy the following criteria [Table B5.1]:
i) For rectangular components stiffened along both edges

b/ti ~ 625/ ~(Fyi - Fr)
{Imperial: b/ti ~ 238/ ~(Fyi - Fr) }
Rev 2, Jan 2002
ii) For rectangular components stiffened along one edge
b/ti::;; 250/ ~(Fyi) {hnperial: b/ti::;; 95/ ~(Fyi) }
iii) For tubular sections
R1ti ::;; 113801Fyi {hnperial: Rlti::;; 1650IFyd
where;
bi = width of a rectangular component
ti thickness of a rectangular component or tube wall
R = outside radius of the tube or tubular component
Fr residual stress due to welding (114 MPa, {16.5 ksi})
Members containing rectangular and tubular sections which do not meet this criteria are
considered to be slender and are treated in 8.1.4.3 b) for local buckling.
a) Strength assessment for Compact and Noncompact Sections

The nominal axial strength of a structural member subject to axial compression and
within the above stipulated restrictions regarding cross section shall be determined from
the following equations:
Pn = A Fer [Eq. E.2.1]
/..2
Fer = (0.658 e ) Fyeff [Eq. E2.2]
Fa = {O~;7} Fyoff For Ae > 1.5 [Eq. E2.3]
where;
A = gross area of section (excluding rack teeth of chords)
Ae = ~ {F;; },v, for max. Ktfrfrom all directions [Eq. E2.4]
1 = unbraced length of member:

- face to face for braces
- braced point to braced point for chords
- longer segment length of X-braces (one pair must be in tension, if not
braced out of plane)
r = radius of gyration, based on gross area of section.
E = material Young's modulus (200,000 MN/m2 {29,000 ksi}).
Fyeff = effective material yield stress, to be taken as the minimum of (specified) yield
stress or 5/6 (ultimate stress) of all components in the member unless rational
analysis shows that a higher value may be used.
K = effective length factor. Figure 8.3 provides generally recommended values for
K. For the specific case of jack-up truss legs, the value of K shall be taken as
follows [Table C-C2.1], unless alternative values are shown applicable by
rational analysis:
Assumed boundary conditions
Chord members 1.0 pinned-pinned
K-Braces & span breakers 0.8 }{ between pinned-pinned
X-Braces 0.9 and fully built-in
Complete legs 2.0 pinned-sliding
Rev 2, Jan 2002
b) Strength Assessment for Members with Slender Components
The nominal axial strength of a structural member subject to axial compression and
outside the restrictions for a) above shall be determined from the following
equations.
where;
Fer = Q(0.658 QA.e2)Fyeff for Ae.JQ ::; 1.5 [Eq. A-B5-11]
I
0.877}
Fer = {"T! Fyeff for Ae.JQ > 1.5 [Eq. A-B5-13]
where Ae is defined in Section 8.1.4.3 a) and Q is determined from the

following:
i) For members comprising entirely of stiffened components [A-B5.3.b and

A-B5.3.c]:
Q = Qa
where;
Qa = AefA [Eq. A-B5-1O]
and
Ae is the section effective area found from:
Ae = L bei ti (excluding rack teeth of chords)
with
bei = 85~i {1-

vfi
170Jf:}
(b i ItJ fi
< b.
- I
. b 326t i
{Impenal: ei = r;- {1- 64.9}r;- ::; b i }
vfi (b i I tJvfi
[Eq A-B5-7]
and fi is the calculated elastic stress in the component where, for the
analysis, the member area is based on the actual cross sectional area but
with elastic section modulus and radius of gyration based on effective
area.
ii) For members comprising of stiffened and unstiffened components

[A-B5.3.b and A-B5.3.c]:
where Qa is determined from Section 8.1.4.3 b) i) but with the additional

check that fi for the stiffened component must be such that the maximum
compressive stress in the unstiffened component does not exceed <PeFer
with Fer defined in Section 8.1.4.3 b) with Q = Qs and <Pc = 0.85 or
=
<l>t,FyeffQs with <PI> 0.90.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Qs is the lowest value for all components in the member which are
stiffened along one edge determined from the following:
For 2501.JF: < b/ti < 4601.JF:

{Imperial: 951.JF: < b/ti < 1761.JF: }
Qs =1.415 - 0.00166(b/ti) .JF:

{Imperial: 1.415 - 0.00437(b/ti) .JF:} [Eq. A-B5-3]
For b/ti;;::: 4601 ~Fyi {Imperial: b/ti ~ 176/ .jF; }
Qs =137,900/[Fyi(b/til
{Imperial: Qs =20,000/[Fyi(b/til} [Eq. A-B5-4]
Note: The implication of this section is that the critical components in

the member will be the unstiffened components. If these buckle, then
the assumed buckling lengths and hence strengths for the stiffened
components will then be wrong, hence invalidating the original
assumptions. This assumes that the un stiffened components are placed
in the member to reduce the buckling length of the major components.
iii) For members comprising a tube alone and:
1l,375IFy < Rlt < 44,815IFy

{Imperial: 1,650IFy < Rlt < 6,500IFy }
3790 2 550 2
Q = ---+-
FyCR I t) 3 {Imperial: Q = FyCR I t) +"3}
[Eg. A-B5-9]
8.1.4.4 Effective Applied Moment/or Members in Tension; Mue (Mue;x,Muey)
In many cases, the effective applied moments used in the interaction equations will not be
equal to applied moments obtained in a structural analysis. This can be due to the type of
structural model and lor the effective length effect on buckling. The following
procedures shall be followed for the determination of the effective applied moment.
The effective applied moment for a member under axial tension shall be taken to be equal
to the applied moment from an analysis including global P-L\ effects and accounting for
local loading.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.1.4.5 Effective Applied Moment/or Compression Members; Mue (Mue;x,Muey)
The effective applied moment for a member under axial compression shall be taken to be:
=
Mue B Mu [Eq. H1.2]
where;
Mu is the applied moment determined in an analysis which includes global P-Mhull-
sway effects and accounts for local loading. When eccentricity is not incorporated
in the model, the equation for Mue should be modified to include pue due to the
eccentricity, e, between the elastic and plastic neutral axes. Note: When the
member considered represents the leg the requirement to include P-A effects in the
global analysis means that the provisions of ii) below apply.
and
i) Where the individual member loads are determined from a first order linear elastic
analysis i.e. the eqUilibrium conditions were formulated on the undeformed
structure, (For example a linear analysis of a detailed truss type leg, using external
loads determined from a second order analysis of a simplified global model):
C
B = m ~ 1.0 [Eq. Hl-3]
(l-Pu /PE )
where:
P E = (1ir AE)/(Kti with K ~ 1.0 and PE is to be calculated for the plane of
bending. A is defined in Section 8.1.4.3 a) and r is the radius of gyration
for the plane of loading.
Cm = a coefficient whose value shall be taken as follows [Ch. H1.2a]:
i) For members not subject to transverse loading between their supports

in the plane of bending Cm = 0.6 - 0.4 (M1IMZ) [Eq. Hl-4] where
MIIMZ is the ratio of the smaller to the larger moments at the ends of
that portion of the member unbraced in the plane of bending under
consideration. MIIMZ is positive when the member is bent in reverse
curvature, negative when bent in single curvature.
ii) For members subjected to transverse loading between their supports,

the value of Cm can be determined from rational analysis. In lieu of
such analysis, the following values may be used:
For members whose ends are restrained against
sidesway Cm =0.85
For members whose ends are unrestrained against
sidesway Cm =1.0
ii) Where the individual member loads are determined from a second order analysis i.e.
the equilibrium conditions were formulated on the elastically deformed structure so
that local P-A loads were also included in the analysis:
B = 1.0
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.1.4.6 Nominal Bending Strength; Mn (Mnx. Mny)
The calculation of nominal bending strength is based on the plastic properties of the
section. The practice allows for hybrid sections built up from components of different
yield strengths. Standard techniques shall be applied to obtain a section plastic moment
in the absence of axial load, Mp , based on the individual component values which are the
lesser values of Fyi and 5/6 FUi (an example is given in the Commentary).
Lateral torsional buckling and local buckling of components must be considered.
If both tensile and compressive yielding occur during the same load cycle, it shall be
demonstrated that the structure will shake down without fracture.
Check: Lateral torsional buckling (Not applicable to tubulars)

The cross sectional geometry of a member subjected to bending shall be examined for
susceptibility to the limit state of lateral torsional bucking. The member cross section
must satisfy the following criteria for compact sections for the nominal bending strength
to be assessed under Sections 8.1.4.6 a) or 8.1.4.6 b).
{Imperial: 4/ry ~ 3750 ~(JA) / Mp }

[Table A-Fl.!]
where;
Lb = Laterally unbraced length; length between points which are either braced
against lateral displacement of the compression flange or braced against
twist of the cross section.
ry = Radius of gyration about the minor axis.

A = Cross sectional area.
J = Torsional constant for the section
Sections which do not satisfy this criteria are susceptible to lateral torsional buckling and
are treated as having slender compression components as in Section 8.1.4.6 c).
Check: Local buckling

The cross sectional geometry of a member subjected to bending is to be examined for
susceptibility to the limit state of local bucking. If local buckling is deemed to be the
limit state, the nominal bending strength shall be reduced in accordance with the
following paragraphs. Members with particularly slender components are covered in
Section 8.1.4.6c).
For this check it is necessary to identify web components and flange components. This
can be done by visual inspection, with knowledge of the major and minor axes. For
example, in a split-tubular, opposed rack chord, the rack plate would be a suitable web
component, and the split tubulars flanges. For a teardrop chord, the rack and side plates
would be web components, and the back plate the flange. In cases of doubt, components
shall be checked as both web and flange.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
a) Compact Sections
For members in which all the components sections satisfy the following [Table B5.1]:
b/ti :::; Ap
where;
Ap = 500/ ~(Fyi) {Imperial: Ap = 190/ ~(Fyi) }
b/ti :::; Ap
where;
Ap = 170/ ~(Fyi ) {Imperial: Ap = 65/ J(Fyi) }
2R1t :::; Ap
where;
Ap :::; 14270IFyi {Imperial: Ap :::; 20701Fyi}
The nominal bending strength is given by the plastic bending moment of the whole
section
Mn = Mp [Eq-A-F1-1]
where Mp is derived as discussed above.
Note: Where significant plastic hinge rotations are required the section must remain
stable after rotation through an appreciable angle. In such cases, to achieve this
requirement, the limitations of ii) and iii) above should be reduced to:
ii) Ap = 135/ J(Fyi) {Imperial: Ap = 52/ J(Fyi ) }
iii) Ap:::; 1l000IFyi {Imperial: Ap:::; 16001Fyi}
b) Noncompact Sections
For members in which all the components do not satisfy the previous criteria but satisfy
the following [Table B5.1]:
b/tj :::; Ar
where;
Ar = 625/ ~(Fyi - Fr)
2
{Imperial: Ar = 238/ ~(Fyi - Fr) } I
Fr = 114 MN/m {16.5 ksi} residual stress
b/tj :::; Ar
where;
Ar {hnperial: Ar= 106/ ~(Fywj -Fr)}
Fywj = web component yield stress.
Fr = 114 MN/m2 {16.5 ksi} residual stress.
2R1t :::; Ar I
where;
Ar :::; 61850IFyi
Rev 2, Jan 2002
The nominal bending strength is given by an interpolation between the plastic bending
moment and the limiting buckling moment:
A-A} [Eq. A-F1.3]
Mn = Mp - (Mp- Mr) { A _;
r P h
where;
Mp = Section Plastic Moment.
h = subscript referring to the component which produces the smallest value of
Mn.
A = bit or 2R1t as applicable for component h.
Ap is determined for component h from 8.1.4.6 a).
Ar is determined for component h from 8.1.4.6 b).
Mr is the limiting buckling moment of the section defined as follows:
For bending of non-tubular sections about the major axis, the lesser of
Mr = FI S (flange buckling) [Table A-Fl.I] II
Mr = ReFyfjS (web buckling) [Table A-Fl.I]
where;
FI = the smaller of (Fyfj - Fr) and Fywj II
S = minimum section elastic modulus for plane of bending under
consideration.
For bending of non-tubular sections about the minor axis;

Mr = FyfjS (flange buckling) [Table A-Fl.I]
For bending of tubular sections: [Table A-Fl.I]

Mr = {2068
R It
+F}S
Y
300
{Imperial: Mr = {- - + Fy }S}
RI t
= yield stress of flange component.
= hybrid girder reduction factor [A-G2]
= 1.0 if components are of the same material
otherwise:
3
= [12 + ar (3m - m )] 1(12 + 2 ar) <=1.0 II
ar = ratio of total web area to area of compression flange.
m = ratio of web component yield stress to flange component yield stress
which gives smallest value of Re.
c) Slender Sections
The nominal bending strength of members including components which do not satisfy the
above criteria for compact and noncompact sections or for lateral torsional buckling shall
be determined in accordance this section.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
The nominal bending strength of a member is given by the limiting flexural bending
moment:
Mn = S Fer
where S is the elastic section modulus for the plane of bending under consideration and
Fer is the lowest value from (where appropriate):
i) Doubly symmetric members (lateral torsional buckling)
Fer = 6.895 CbXj J2 {I + Xj2X2 }!f2 [Table A-F1.1(b)]

/.. 2/..2
. CbXj J2 { XI 2X2 }!f2

{Impenal: Fer = /.. 1 + 2/..2 }
where;
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05(M/M2) + 0.3(M/M2i ~ 2.3 where MI is the smaller and M2
the larger end moment in the unbraced member; MIIM2 is positive when
the moments cause reverse curvature.
Xl = (1tIS) .J(EGJA I 2)
X2 = (4CwlIy)(Sx/GJ)2
E = Modulus of elasticity (200,000 MN/m2 {29,000 ksi}).
G = Shear modulus of elasticity (77,200 MN/m2 {II ,200 ksi}).
J = Torsion constant for section.
A = Cross-sectional area (excluding rack teeth).
Iy = Second moment of area of section about minor axis.
Sx = Elastic section modulus for major axis bending.
Cw = Warping constant.
/.. = LJry
ry = Radius of gyration about the minor axis
ii) Singly symmetric members (lateral torsional buckling) [Table A-F1.1(c)]
Fer =
where;
B1 = 2.25 {{ ::) -1}{~J{; r

B2 = 25 {1-(:: )}{ ~J e; }
h = web depth.
Ie = second moment of area of compression flange about the section minor axis
Cb = as for doubly symmetric sections.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
iii) Doubly and singly symmetric members (flange local buckling)
[Table A-Fl.l(g)]
Fer = 77,220().} {Imperial: Fer = 1l,2001')...2}
where;
')... = b/ti for flange(s)
iv) For tubular members (Local buckling) [Table A-Fl.!]

Fer = 33,610/(RJt) {Imperial: Fer = 4,875/(RJt)}
where;
R = radius of tubular
t = wall thickness of tubular
8.1.4.7 Determination of n for non-tubular sections
The general interaction equation requires that applied bending moments are resolved into
components in two perpendicular axes (X, Y). For elaborate sections such as chords,
these axes may be selected on the basis of section geometry and not on load incidence.
Therefore neither of these axes need be coincident with the angle of load. The use of the
exponent 11 is necessary to ensure that the effective nominal bending strength of the
section is not significantly influenced by this choice of axes.
To determine a suitable value of 11 the following process is applied:

1. For angles q = 0°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 90°, to the X-axis, obtain the allowable bending
strengths Mnq.
2. Assume loads incident at angle q=30°, the limiting bending moment in the absence of
axial load is Muq =Mnq. When the section is non-compact Mnq is a function of Mr and
a suitable analysis in line with that of Section 8.1.4.6 b), should be applied in
determining Mr for non-principal axes.
3. Resolve this limiting moment into limiting components M'uex and M'uey about the X
and Y axes:
M'uex =Muq cos q
M'uey = Muq sin q
4. The interaction ratio for the (X,Y) axis pair is required to give the same result as if the
X-axis were lined up with the q-axis:
i.e.
Since Mnx and Mny are by definition Mnq for q = 0° and 90° respectively and so are
I
known, the only unknown in the above identity is 11. This can be determined from the
graph in Figure 8.4 or by numerical means if preferred. Figure 8.4 is based on the
ratio MuqlMnq being equal to unity, and will produce conservative results when axial
loads are present.
5. Step 4 yields a value of 11 suitable for loads from 30° to the X-axis. Steps 2 to 4 are
repeated for q =45° and 60° to obtain a range of values of 11.
6. The value of 11 for use in subsequent assessment· shall be the least of the above
determined values, but not less than 1.0.
I
Rev 2, Jan 2002
This method includes some approximation. Since bending will not be along or
perpendicular to a plane of symmetry, deflection will not necessarily be at the same angle
as the applied moment. This effect is second order.
Note: An alternative, more detailed approach, involving modified interaction equations is

presented below for a number of typical chord configurations.
8.1.4.8 Plastic Interaction Curve Approach
Alternatively, interaction equations and curves for generic families of chords are
presented in Figures C8.1.8 - C8.1.11 in the Commentary. These are taken from Dyer
[19] and based on the interaction approach proposed by e.g. Duan & Chen [20]. It
should be noted that the curves and equations are based on axial load applied at the
'center of squash' which is defined as the location at which the axial load produces no
moment on the yielded section. For chords without two axes of symmetry (triangular
and tubular with offset rack) this is offset from the elastic centroid when the section is
comprised of materials of differing yield strengths. Before a section is checked it is
necessary to correct as appropriate moments by the axial load times the offset distance
between the elastic centroid (used in the structural analysis) and the 'center of squash'.
This offset, together with other geometric data for the members of each family of chord
is presented in Tables C8.l.1 to C8.1.4 in the Commentary. The effective applied
moment may then be calculated from:
Muex = BxCMux + Pu.ey)
Muey = ByCMuy + Pu.ex)
The interaction equations are based on ultimate capacity. It is therefore necessary to
introduce the required resistance factors. This is achieved by defining:
Py = F1.a.Pn
Mpx = Fz·b.Mnx
Mpy = Fz.b.Mny
where; FI = 1.0, unless alternative values are justified by analysis.
Fz =1.0, unless alternative values are justified by analysis.
The ratio of PulPy, MuexlMpx and MueylMpy shall be determined for the condition under
consideration. The user should then enter the plastic interaction curves with the
MuexlMpx and MueylMpy ratios. The allowable value for PulPy may then be determined.
A measure of the interaction ratio can then be obtained as the ratio between the actual
and allowable values of PulPy.
The user should note that the equations for sections with only one axis of symmetry
depend on the sign of the moment about the Y-Y axis (given in the Figures). The sign
convention should be observed with care.
The equations are based on lower bound data from each family of chord shape and will
therefore tend to be conservative. More accurate results will be obtained from the
individual consideration of the chord in question.
[NOTE: At present Figures C8.l.8 - C8.1.11 in the Commentary cover only fully
plastic section strength considerations, and their use for a beam-column member is
based on the assumption that the member being evaluated is sufficiently short/compact
that elasto-plastic stability (buckling at large strains) is not a consideration. Violating
Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units
Rev 2, Jan 2002
Page 127
this assumption may lead to errors on the unsafe side. Updated infonnation covering
elasto-plastic stability may be generated in the future, and should preferentially be used
for member evaluations.]
I
8.1.5 Assessment orother member geometries
It is recommended that other member geometries are assessed using the relevant
provisions of AISC LRFD [14] or, for stiffened or high Rlt ratio shell members, the DNV
Rules for fixed offshore installations in conjunction with the DNV Classification note on
Buckling Strength Analysis of Mobile Offshore Units [15].
For these geometries, the nominal strength/resistance factors shall be the same as given in
the relevant codes, but the load cases and factored loads should be determined in
accordance with Section 8.1.3 rather than using the factors in the reference.
8.1.6 Assessment of member joints
It is recommended that the assessment of joints of members which fonn a truss structure
be carried out in accordance with AISC LRFD [14] or API LRFD [16] as appropriate for
the joint under consideration. The factored loads should be detennined in accordance
with Section 8.1.3, rather than using the factors in the references.
Rack plate
component
Split tubular
components Side plate
components
Rack plate
component
Back plate
component
OPPOSED RACK
SPLIT TmJULAR TRIANGULAR TYPE
CHORD MEMBER SECTION CHORD MEMBER SECTION
Figure 8.2: Typical members and components

Rev 2, Jan 2002
(a) (b) (e) Cd) (e: (f)
~
,,~ rh ,p 12~ ~!)
t
I
~,...
~t~
,
l
I \ I
I I
,
I I
,
I
\
\ I
I
, I
I
,, ,
j
Buckled shape of column ! L I
is shown by dashed line j I I ,
I
I
I
, I
I 1 I I
\ \
\
,
I I I I
/
•
\
)
I I
• I
I
I
I
",?>
77,( m'fT 11';( Im;r.-
t 1 t' t
lbeoretical K value 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Recommended design
value when ideal 0000:- 0.65 0.80 1.2 1.0 2.10 2.0
tions are approximated
.ur- Rotation fixed and translation fixed
E:Kl condition code V Rotation frte and trao.slation

Rotation find and translation free
ti~ed
FlfA
? Rotation (ree and translation free
Figure 8.3: Effective Length Factors (from AISC-LRFD [14])
.8
6+---+---~--+-~~~
[ ~: J5+---+--4-~k-
1
.4+---+---~--+-~~--+---~--~~~--fT--+
.7 .8 .9 1
Figure 8.4: Chart for Determination of n

Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.2.1 For independent leg jack-ups the assumed overturning axis shall be the most critical axis
passing through any two spudcan reaction points as defined in Section 5.2.
8.2.2 The overturning moment shall be calculated from the components of environmental
loading, resolved normal to the overturning axis, times the vertical distance from the
point of action of the component to the overturning axis.
The overturning stability should be checked for the overturning moment Mo caused by
the following factored loads:
Mo = Y3(ME + Y4.M Dn)
where;
Y3 = 1.15 (provisional - see Section 1.8) II
Y4 = 1.0
ME = The extreme overturning moment due to the assessment return period
wind, wave and current conditions (see note).
MDn = The dynamic overturning moment due to the inertial loadset which
represents the contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static
response as described in Section 7.3.6 (see note).
8.2.3 The unit shall be shown to satisfy the following overturning requirements:
Mo :s; <l>1.Mo + 2.ML + 3.Ms
where;
Mo = The stabilizing moments due to weight of structure and non-varying loads
(at the displaced position resulting from the factored loads - see note)
including:
- Weight in air including appropriate solid ballast.
- Equipment.
- Buoyancy.
- Permanent enclosed liquid.
ML = The stabilizing moment due to the most onerous combination of
minimum variable load and center of gravity applicable to extreme
conditions as specified in Section 3.2 (at displaced position - see note).
Ms = The stabilizing moments due to seabed foundation fixity (these shall not
be taken into account unless specific calculations for the location and the
spudcan concerned show that a significant contribution from seabed fixity
may be expected).
<1>1 = R.F. for dead load moments (Mo) = 0.95
<1>2 = R.F. for live load moments (Md = 0.95
<1>3 R.F. for seabed moments (Ms) = 0.95
Note: It may be convenient to consider the reduction in dead and live load stabilizing
moment caused by the displacement resulting from the factored loads as an increase in the
overturning moment, rather than as a reduction in the stabilizing moment.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.3 Foundation assessment
The foundation assessment shall be carried out in a step-wise manner until the
requirements of the current stage are satisfied when it is not necessary to proceed further.
The philosophy is described in Section 6.3 and shown in Figure 6.9.
8.3.1 Step 1 - Preload and Sliding checks
Step 1a - Preload check
8.3.1.1 A preload check shall be used to verify the adequacy of the leeward leg foundation. The
acceptance criteria for the windward leg are discussed in Section 8.3.1.5.
8.3.1.2 The preloading capability should be checked for the vertical leg reaction Qv caused by the
following factored loads:
where;
YI = 1.0
Yz = 1.0
Y4 = 1.0
VD = Vertical leg reaction due to the weight of the structure and non-varying
loads including:
Equipment or other objects.
Buoyancy.
Pennanent enclosed liquid.
VL = Vertical leg reaction due to maximum variable load positioned at the
most onerous center of gravity location applicable to extreme conditions
as specified in Section 3.2.
VE = Extreme vertical leg reaction due to the assessment return period wind,
wave and current conditions (including associated large displacement
effects).
VOn = Vertical leg reaction due to the inertial loadset which represents the
contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static response as
described in Section 7.3.6 (including associated large displacement
effects).
8.3.1.3 The preload capacity shall be shown to be sufficient to satisfy the following requirements:
where;
=
VLo Vertical leg reaction during preloading
% = R.F. for foundation capacity during preload
= 0.9 (see Commentary)
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.3.1.4 In dense sands (Le. with maximum bearing area not mobilized) and in clayey soils the
preload check may be applied if the leeward leg horizontal reaction QH < 0.1 VLo (with QH
determined in accordance with the equations of Section 8.3.1.5). For a spudcan fully
embedded in sand the preload check may be applied if the leeward leg horizontal reaction
QH < 0.03VLo. In all other cases a pinned condition bearing capacity check of the
foundation shall be carried out in accordance with Section 8.3.2 (see Commentary).
8.3.1.5 Step Ib - Sliding Resistance - Windward Leg(s)
a) The sliding capacity of the windward leges) should be checked for the horizontal leg
reaction QH caused by the following factored loads:
QH = Y3(HE + Y4. H Dn)
in association with:
Qv = YI.V O + Y2. VL + Y3(VE+ Y4. VDn)
where;
YI = 1.0
Y2 = 1.0
Y3 1.15 (provisional. see Section 1.8) II
Y4 = 1.0
HE, VE The extreme horizontal and vertical leg reactions due to the assessment
return period wind, wave and current conditions (including associated
large displacement effects).
H on ,VDn = The horizontal and vertical leg reactions due to the inertialloadset which
represents the contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static
response as described in Section 7.3.6 (including associated large
Vo =. Vertical leg reaction due to the weight of the structure and non-varying
loads including:
Buoyancy.
VL = Vertical leg reaction due to the minimum variable load positioned at the
most onerous center of gravity location applicable to extreme conditions
as specified in Section 3.2.
b) The foundation shall be shown to satisfy the following capacity requirements:

QH ~ <J>Hfc.FH
where;
FH = foundation capacity to withstand horizontal loads when load Qv is acting
<!>Hfc = R.F. for horizontal foundation capacity (see Commentary).

= 0.80 (effective stress - sand/drained).
= 0.64 (total stress - clay/undrained).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.3.2 Step 2a - Capacity check - pinned foundation
8.3.2.1 The bearing capacity of the leeward leg should be checked for the leg reaction vector
QVH, relative to the still water leg reaction vector, caused by the following factored loads:
QVH = YI.VHo + Y2. VHL + Y3(VHE + Y4. VHDn)
where;
YI = 1.0
Y2 = 1.0
Y4 = 1.0
VHo = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to the weight of structure
and non-varying loads (allowing for structural deformation) including:
Buoyancy.
VHL = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction (allowing for structural
deformation) due to maximum variable load positioned at the most onerous
center of gravity location applicable to extreme conditions as specified in
Section 3.2 (including associated large displacement effects).
VHE = Vector of extreme vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to the assessment
return period wind, wave and current conditions (including associated large
VHon = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to the inertial load set
which represents the contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-
static response as described in Section 7.3.6 (including associated large
8.3.2.2 The leeward leg foundation shall be shown to satisfy the following capacity requirements:
QVH ~ c!>vH .FVH
where;
FVH = foundation capacity to withstand combined vertical and horizontal loads
taken as a vector from the still water load vector in the same direction as
QVH.
c!>vH = R.F. for foundation capacity (see Commentary).

= 0.90 - Maximum bearing area not mobilized.
= 0.85 - Penetration sufficient to mobilize maximum bearing area.
8.3.2.3 The windward leg foundations should be checked according to the requirements of
Section 8.3.1.5.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.3.3 Step 2b - Capacity check - with foundation fixity
8.3.3.1 The foundation capacity of the leeward and windward legs should be checked for the leg
reaction vector, including the associated can moment, QVHM, relative to the still water leg
reaction vector, caused by the following factored loads:
QVHM = Yl.VHMD + Y2.VHML + Y3(VHME + Y4. VHMDn)
where;
Yl = 1.0
Y2 = 1.0
Y3 = 1.15 (provisional. see Section 1.8) II
Y4 = 1.0
VHJ\,1D = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction and spudcan moment due
to the weight of the structure including non-varying loads (allowing for
structural deformation and large displacement effects) including:
Buoyancy.
VHML = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction and spudcan moment
(allowing for structural deformation and large displacement effects) due
to maximum (leeward leg) or minimum (windward leg) variable load
positioned at the most onerous center of gravity location applicable to
extreme conditions as specified in Section 3.2.
VHME = Vector of extreme vertical and horizontal leg reaction and spudcan
moment due to the assessment return period wind, wave and current
conditions (including associated large displacement effects).
VHJ\,1Dn = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction and spudcan moment due
to the inertial loadset which represents the contributions of dynamics
over and above the quasi-static response as described in Section 7.3.6
(including associated large displacement effects).
8.3.3.2 The leg reaction vector QVHM shall be checked to satisfy the yield surface as defined in
6.3.4.
I
8.3.3.3 The windward and leeward leg foundations shall also be shown to satisfy the bearing
capacity and sliding capacity requirements of 8.3.2.
I
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.3.4 Step 3 - Displacement check
If the factored loads on any footing exceed the factored capacity discussed above a further
assessment may be performed in order to show that any additional settlements and/or the
associated additional structural loads are within acceptable limits. See Section 6.3.5.
8.3.5 Punch-through
The selection of factors of safety against punch-through should be made using sound
engineering judgment, accounting for the accuracy of the available soil data and the
magnitude of any possible sudden penetration (see Commentary).
When the possibility of punch-through exists during the installation and preloading
phases it may be applicable to consider the magnitude of possible sudden penetration in
comparison with the structural capability of the unit to resist punch-through.
If the possibility of punch-through remains once the unit has been installed on location
and elevated to the operational airgap the evaluation should account for long term effects
(e.g. cyclic degradation).
8.4 Horizontal Deflections
When working close to or over a platform the assessor shall, if required by the platform
owner, provide the extreme deflections of the jack-up to the platform owner (see Section
5.5.1 of the GUIDELINE).
8.5 Loads in the Holding System
8.5.1 The holding system (elevation and/or fixation system) is deemed to be the system which
forms the load path connecting the hull to the legs.
8.5.2 The loads in the holding system shall not exceed those specified by the manufacturers,
unless the basis of the limitations and the equivalent reference stress levels are stated,
when the factored applied load may be compared with the ultimate capacity multiplied by
a R.F. (q,) of 0.85.
8.5.3 he stresses in the structural members connecting the holding system to the hull shall be in
accordance with the requirements of Section 8.1.
8.6 Hull
8.6.1 It is assumed that the jack-up hull is designed and built to the structural/scantling
requirements of a recognized Classification Society and carries a valid Class Certificate.
8.6.2 For jack-ups where 8.6.1 does not apply it shall be shown that the hull has adequate
strength to withstand appropriate combinations of dead load, variable load, environmental
load, deflections, preload conditions and dynamics effects.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8.7 Structure Condition Assessment
The objective of the site specific assessment is to ensure an appropriate level of structural
reliability of the jack-up in the elevated condition. To achieve this, account must be taken
of any deterioration in the jack-up structure (see Section 1.3.4 of the GUIDELINE). The
condition of the structure is the responsibility of the owner and is deemed to be
satisfactory if the jack-up has valid class certification as described in Section 2.4.2.
Normally the owner can thus provide the assessor with all the information required to
satisfy the structure condition requirement.
In special cases (usually at the option of the operator), an on site structural inspection may
be required to assess the condition of the jack-up. Guidance for such an on site structural
inspection is given in the Commentary. In the event that the results of this inspection
reveal deterioration of the structure, due account of such deterioration shall be taken into
account in the assessment.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS . ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
ar = Ratio of total web area to area of compression flange.

A = Cross sectional area of a member (excluding rack teeth).
Ae = Section effective area (excluding rack teeth).
Ai = Area of a component in a member.
bei = Effective width of a component.
bi = Width of a rectangular component.
B,B},B 2 = Factors used in determining Mu for combined bending and compressive axial
load.
Bx,By = Moment amplification factors. II
Cb = Bending coefficient dependent on moment gradient.
Cm = Coefficient applied to bending term in interaction formula for prismatic
members dependent upon column curvature caused by applied moments.
Cw = Warping constant.
D = Dead load vector due to the self-weight of the structure and non-varying loads.
Do = The load vector due to the inertial loadset which represents the contribution of
dynamics over and above the quasi-static response (including associated large
e
= Eccentricity between elastic and plastic neutral axes.
e , ex, ey = Eccentricity between elastic and plastic neutral axes.
I
II
E = Load due the to assessment return period wind, wave and current conditions
(including associated large displacement effects).
E = Modulus of elasticity (200,000 MN/m2 {29 ,000 ksi} ).
fi = Component compressive stress.
Fer = Critical stress.
FH = Foundation capacity to withstand horizontal loads when Qv is acting.
Fmio = The smaller value of Fyi and (5/6)Fui of all the
2
components (in a member).
Fr = Residual stress due to welding (114 MN/m ).
FVH = Foundation capacity to withstand combined vertical and horizontal loads.
FVHM = Foundation capacity to withstand combined vertical, horizontal and moment
loads.
Fy = Minimum specified yield stress or specified yield strength.
Fyh = Minimum yield stress or specified yield strength of component with highest bit
ratio.
Fyeff = Effective material yield stress for consideration of axial buckling.
FYi = Minimum specified component yield stress or specified yield strength.
Fywj = Minimum specified web yield stress or specified yield strength.
Fyfj = Minimum specified flange yield stress or specified yield strength.
FUi = Component material ultimate strength.
G = Shear modulus of elasticity.
h = Subscript referring to the component which produces the smallest value of Mo.
h = Web depth.
H Do = Horizontal leg reaction due to inertialloadset representing dynamics.
HE = Horizontal leg reaction due wind wave and current.
Ie = Second moment of area of compression flange.
I = Second moment of area of section.
Ix = Second moment of area of section about major axis.
Iy = Second moment of area of section about minor axis.
J = Torsional constant for the section.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (continued)
K = Effective length factor.

1 = Unbraced length of member; face to face for braces, braced point to braced point
for chords.
L = The load vector due to the maximum or minimum variable load positioned at
the most onerous center of gravity location applicable to extreme conditions.
Lb = Laterally unbraced length; length between points which are either braced against
lateral displacement of compression flange or braced against twist of the cross
section.
m = Ratio of web component yield stress to flange component yield stress which
gives smallest value of Re.
MD = Stabilizing moment due to self weight.
MDn = Overturning moment due to inertialloadset representing dynamics.
ME = Extreme overturning moment due to wind, wave and current.
ML = Stabilizing moment due to most onerous combination of variable load and
center of gravity.
Ms = Stabilizing moment due to seabed foundation fixity.
Mn,Mnx ,
Mny = Nominal bending strength.
Mnq = Allowable bending strength about axis q.
Me = Factored overturning moment.
Mp = Section plastic moment.
Mpx = Plastic moment capacity about member x-axis.
Mpy
Mr
=
=
Plastic moment capacity about member y-axis.
Limiting buckling moment of section.
II
Mu = Applied moment determined in an analysis which includes global P-~ effects
and accounts for local loading.
M ue, Muex,
Muey = Effective applied bending moment.
M'uex, M'uey = Limiting components of applied bending moment.
Muq = Assumed limiting bending moment about axis q in absence of axial load.
MI = Smaller end moment of a member.
M2 = Larger end moment of a member.
PE = Euler buckling strength.
Pu = Applied axial load.
Pn = Nominal axial strength.
P ni = Component nominal axial strength.
Py = Axial yield strength. II
q = Angle of load heading with respect to defined X axis.
Q = Factored load vector.
Q = Full reduction factor for slender compression components.
Qa = Reduction factor for slender stiffened compression components.
QH = Factored horizontal leg reaction.
Qs = Reduction factor for slender unstiffened compression components.
Qv = Factored vertical leg reaction.
QVH = Factored leg reaction vector of vertical and horizontal loads.
QVHM = Factored leg reaction vector of vertical, horizontal and moment loads.
r = Radius of gyration.
rx = Radius of gyration about the major axis.
ry = Radius of gyration about the minor axis.
R = Outside radius of the tube or tubular component.
Re = Hybrid girder reduction factor.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (continued)
S = Elastic section modulus.

Sx = Elastic section modulus for major axis bending.
Sy = Elastic section modulus for minor axis bending.
t = Thickness of tubular member or tubular section.
ti = Thickness of a rectangular or tubular component..
VD = Vertical leg reaction due to self weight.
VDn = Vertical leg reaction due to inertialloadset representing dynamics.
VE = Vertical leg reaction due wind wave and current.
VL = Vertical leg reaction due to maximum or minimum variable load at most
onerous center of gravity.
VLo = Vertical leg reaction during preloading.
VHD = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to self weight.
VHDn = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to inertialloadset representing
dynamics.
VHE = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due wind wave and current.
VHL = Vector of vertical and horizontal leg reaction due to maximum variable load at
most onerous center of gravity.
VHMD = Vector of vertical, horizontal and moment leg reaction due to self weight.
VHMDn = Vector of vertical, horizontal and moment leg reaction due to inertial loadset
representing dynamics.
VHME = Vector of vertical, horizontal and moment leg reaction due wind wave and
current.
VHML = Vector of vertical, horizontal and moment leg reaction due to maximum or
minimum variable load at most onerous center of gravity.
XJ,X2 = Beam buckling factors.
~ = Component plastic modulus.
Y = Load factor.
YI = Load factor for dead load vector.
Y2 = Load factor for variable load vector.
Y3 = Load factor for environmental load vector.
Y4 = Load factor for inertial load vector due to dynamic response.
A,Ac = Column slenderness parameter.
Ap = Limiting slenderness parameter for compact component.
Ar = Limiting slenderness parameter for noncompact component.
II = Exponent for biaxial bending.
 = Resistance factor.
<l>a = Resistance factor for axial load.
t, = Resistance factor for bending.
<l>c = Resistance factor for axial load (compression).
<!>Hfc = Resistance factor for foundation to withstand horizontal loads when Qv is
acting.
</>p = Resistance factor for foundation during preload.
<l>t = Resistance factor for axial load (tension).
<PvH = Resistance factor for foundation to withstand combined vertical and horizontal
loads.
<PvHM = Resistance factor for foundation to withstand combined vertical, horizontal and
moment loads.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS - ACCEPI'ANCE CRITERIA (continued)
<1>1 = Resistance factor for dead load moments (MD).

<1>2 = Resistance factor for live load moments (ML).
<1>3 = Resistance factor for seabed moments (Ms).
Rev 2, Jan 2002
REFERENCES
1 Carter D.J.T. (1982), Estimation of Wave Spectra from Wave Height and Period', I.O.S.
Report No. 135.
2 Compiled by P. Walker (1990), The UKOOA Surveying and Positioning Committee

'Technical Notes for the conduct of Mobile Drilling Rig Site Surveys (Geophysical and
Hydrographic)'.
3 Health and Safety Executive, Petroleum Engineering Division (1990), 'Offshore

Installations; guidance on design and construction' (and subsequent amendments).
4 Wheeler J.D. (1969) 'Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves',
Proceedings 1st Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. (OTC 1006).
5 Taylor P.H. (1991), 'Current Blockage - Reduced Forces on Offshore Space-Frame

Structures' Proceedings 23rd Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. (OTC 6519).
6 Det Norske Veritas, Classification Note 31.5, 'Strength Analysis of Main Structures of Self-
Elevating Units', February 1992.
7 Brekke J.N., Murff J.D., Campbell R.B., and Lamb W.e., (1989) 'Calibration of Jackup
Leg Foundation Model Using Full-Scale Structural Measurements', Proceedings 21st
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. (OTC 6127).
8 Meyerhoff G.G. and Chaplin T.K., The Compression and Bearing Capacity of Cohesive
Layers', Br. J. Appl. Phys, No 4, 1953.
9 Brown J.D., and Meyerhoff G.G., Experimental study of Bearing Capacity in Layered
Soils', Proc. 7th ICSMFE, Vol 2, 1969.
10 Winterkorn H.F. and Fang H.Y. (1975) 'Foundation Engineering Handbook', Van Nostrand
Reinbhold Company.
11.1 Noble Denton & Associates Limited (1987), Foundation fixity of jack-up units, Joint
Industry Study', Volumes I and ll.
11.2 Noble Denton & Associates Limited (1988), Foundation fixity of jack-up units, Joint
Industry Study, extra work'.
12 Sarpkaya T. and Isaacson M. (1981), 'Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures',

Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
13 Det Norske Veritas, Classification Note 30.2, 'Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile
Offshore Units', August 1984.
14 American Institute of Steel Construction, 'Specification for Structural Steel Buildings -

Load and Resistance Factor Design', September 1986.
Rev 2, Jan 2002
REFERENCES (Continued)
15 Det Norske Veritas, 'Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations', July 1989,
Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 6B and associated Class Note 30.1, 'Buckling strength analysis of
Mobile Offshore Units', October 1987.
16 American Petroleum Institute, 'Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design'
(RP 2A-LRFD), First Edition, December 1989.
17 Matlock H. (1970), "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay",
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 1204).
18 Andersen K.H. (1992), "Cyclic effects on Bearing Capacity and Stiffness for a Jack-up
Platform on Clay", NGI Oslo report 913012-1, Rev 1.
19 Dyer A.P., "Plastic Strength Interaction Equations for Jack-Up Chords", MSc Thesis, Dept
of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Nov. 1992.
20 Duan L., Chen W.-F., "A Yield Surface Equation for Doubly Symmetrical Sections",
Engineering Structures, Vol 12, pp. 114-119, April 1990.
Recommended Practice jar Site Specific Assessment oj Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 142
Rev 2, Jan 2002
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 10,110-135

dynamic extreme response 102
foundation assessment 130
holding system loads 134
horizontal deflections 134
hull 134
overturning stability 129
plUlCh-through 134
structural strength check 110
structure condition assessment 135
ADDED MASS 35,91,95,100
AIRGAP 15,20
AIRY WAVE TIIEORY 15,31
AlSC-lRFD CODE 1l0,112,113
ASSOCIA1ED WAVE PERIOD 15
AXIAL AREA
chord 49
leg 54
AXIAL LOAD
at leg/hull connection 50
duetoP-~ 44
AXIAL SIRENG1H
compact and noncompact sections 117
slender sections 118
structural member in compression 116
structural member in tension 116
BASE SHEAR 1RANSFER RJNCTION 9O,94,98-99,I02-103
BATHYME1RIC SURVEY 21,22
BEARING CAPACITY 61-82

bearing capacity check, foundation stability 72,132
penetration in carbonate sands 65
penetration in clays 64
penetration in layered soils 66-69
penetration in silica sands 65
penetration in silts 65
settlements resulting from exceedence of capacity envelope 73
soil back-flow 63
BENDING MOMENT
bending moment diagrams for leg 55-58
bending moment due to foundation 42
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
BENDING SfRENGTH 121-125

compact sections 122
noncompact sections 122-123
slender sections 123 -125
BIAXIAL BENDING EXPONENT 125 -128
BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION 24
BREAKING WAYES 19,31
CENTER OF ORAVITY 13,14,114,129-134
COMPACf SECTIONS
definition 114
nominal axial strength 116
nominal bending strength 121
CONEPENIROMETER TESTING 24
CREST ELEVATION 15,20
CURRENT 18-19,33
drag forces 29-30,33
environmental excitation 93
other considerations 39
load application 53,90
profile 19,33
stretching 19
structure interference 33,34
surface current 18
surge 18,19
tide 18,19
velocity 18,19,33
DETAILED LEG MODELING

hydrodynamic 33-39
structural 4&52
DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS 31,42

dynamic wave analysis 93
extreme response determination 90
hydrodynamic modeling 34
wave height for 15
wave theories 31
DIRECTIONALITY 14
directionality fimction for spreading 17
effects on dynamic response 102
DISPLACEMENT CHECK, FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT 70,81,134

Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
DRAG COEFFICIENTS 33-39

equivalent drag coefficient 34-35
gusset drag coefficient 37
split tube chord drag coefficient 38
triangular chord drag coefficient 39
tubular drag coefficient 36
DRAG FORCE 30,33
DYNAMIC AlV1PLIFICATION 89,91,93,98-100

dynamic amplification factor 98,99
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 89-107

application of dynamic analysis methods 104
c1osed-fonn frequency domain analysis 99
damping 91,98,101
dynamic amplification 89,91,93,94,98
dynamic amplification factor 98,99
environmental excitation 93
equivalent mass-spring-damper system 95,98
extreme response 89,92, 104, 105
fixation system 46,48,49-51,55-58,97
frequency domain method 94,100-101,104,105
inertialloadset 52,53,89-91,98-101
JONSWAP spectrum 16-17,93
maxirnwn response 18
most probable maxirnwn 100-101, 104-105
natural period 18,90,93,94-99
nonlinear elements 91
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum 1693
random analysis 90,93,94,100-103
regular wave (detenninistic) analysis 93
single degree of freedom analogy 98,99
structural system 91
damping 91,98,101
masses 91,95
springs 95
stiffness 91,94
time domain methods 94,101,104-105
EFFECTIVE LENGTH 117

effective length factor 117,128
~ONMENTALDATA 14-21
(see also WIND, WAVE and CURRENT)
directionality 14,17
return period 10,14
return period for airgap 15,20
~ONMENTALEXCITATION 93
EQUIVALENT LEG MODELING

hydrodynamic 33
structural 47,49,54
Recommended Practice/or Site Specific Assessment o/Mobile Jack-Up Units Page 145
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
Subject ~
EXTREME (MPME) RESPONSE 89,92,104
EXTREME STll.L WATER lEVEL 20,42
FACTORED LOADS 110

for foundation stiffness detennination 74
foundation checks 130-134
ovectuming check 129
FACTORED RESISTANCE 110

foundation checks 130-134
overturning check 129
FATIGUE 89,106-107
analysis 42,107
environmental data for 17-18,19
life requirements 106
sensitive areas 106
FIXATION SYSTEM 46
modeling 48,49-51
rotational and vertical stiffness 97
shear force and bending moment diagrams 55-58
FIXITY 42-43
degree of fixity 43,91,94
foundation capacity with 133
horizontal and vertical stiffness 75,%
rotational foundation fixity (stiffness) 42-43,73-75,76,95
FOO1PRINTS 22,79
FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT 130-134

capacity check 132
foundation fixity 133
pinned foundation 132
displacement check 134
horizontal leg reaction 133
preload check 130
sliding resistance 131
vertical leg reaction 125
FOUNDATION ANALYSIS 61-86

bearing capacity 61-81,1~134
displacement check 70,81,134
moment fixity 73-81
footprints 22,83
leaning instability 83
other considerations 70
partial spudcan embedment 70
preloading penetration 61-69
preloading check 70-72,130-131
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
FOUNDATION ANALYSIS (Continued)

scour 22,84
seafloor instability 85
shallow gas 22,85
sliding check 70,72-73,131
spudcan-pile interaction 86
FREQUENCY OOMAIN ANALYSIS 92,94, 101-103, 104 - 105

closed-foan frequency domain analysis 100
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS 61-86

leg penetration 61-69
analysis method 61-63
carbonate sands 65
clay 64
layered soils 66-69
silica sands 65
silts 65
spudcan geometries 61,62
spudcan fotmdation model 62
GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS 21-24

bathymetric survey 21,22
borehole investigation 24
cone penetrometer testing 24
geotechnical investigation 24
seabed smface survey 21-23
shallow seismic survey 22,23
soil sampling 22
use of geotechnical data 61
GUIDES 46,49-51,59
GUSSETS 37,48
HEIGEIT COEFFICIENT FOR WIND LOADING 28
HOlDING SYSTEM LOADS 46,49,134
HORlZONTAL DEFLECTIONS 134
HORlZONTALIEG REACTION, FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT 131- 133
HUlL
acceptance criteria 134
detailed hull model 49
equivalent hull model 49
functional loads 13
loading 52
HULlJlEG CONNECTION MODELING 46,47,49-51

equivalent system 49,51
fixation system 50,51
guides 49-51,59
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
HUll.JlEG CONNECfION MODELING (Continued)

jackcase 51
jacking system 50,51
modeling considerations 49-51
shock pads 51
HUlL MODELING 49
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS 36-39

gussets 37
marine growth 21,30,36
non-rubulars 38
other shapes 39
rough ttJbulars 36
smooth ttJbulars 36
split tube chord 38
triangular chord 39
rubulars 36
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS 29-31,53

deterministic/regular wave analysis 15,31
chagforce 30
fluid-structure interaction 30,98
inertia force 30-31
Morison's equation 29,30,31,33,36
slender members 29
stochastidrandom wave height/spectra 15,16-17,31
wave kinematic extrapolation 31
INERTIA
inertia coefficients 35,36,37,38-39
inertia force (wave) 30
inertialloadset 52,53,89,90,98 - 101
~CTIONEQUATIONSFORMEMBER~ 115,119, 125
JACKING SYSTEM 46,49-51,55-58
LARGE DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS (see NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS)
lEANING INSTABILITY 79
lEG'CAN CONNECfION 43
lEG'HULLCONNECfION (seeHUIlJl.EG CONNECTION)
lEG INa..INATION 43
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
lEG MODELING
hydrodynamic
added mass 35,91,94
buoyancy 13
~edlegnKrleling 33-34
drag coefficients 33-39
equivalent leg nKrleling 33-35
inertia coefficients 35,36-37,38-39
member lengths 34
non-structural items 34
shielding 34
solidification 34
spudcan nKrleling 34
strucnJral
combination leg nKrleling 49
~ed leg nKrleling 46-52
equivalent leg nKrleling 4749,54
member lengths 48
single detailed leg model 48
spudcan nKrleling 52
lEG PENETRATION
analysis method 61-63
carbonate sands 65
clay 64
layered soils 66
silica sands 65
silts 65
lEG RESERVE 21
LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACfOR DESIGN, SIRUCfURAL S1RENGTII 110-113,127
LOADS
application to structural model 52-53
combinations 90
current 53,90
hull (fimctional) 13,52
hydrodynamic 29-31,53
inertialloadset 52,53,89,90,98 - 101
P-d 4345,52,53
wind27-29,53
LOCAL BUCKLING 116,121
MARINE GROWTIl 21,30,36
MASS-SPRING-DAMPER SYSTEM 95,98-100
MAXIMUM HEIGHf, WAVE 14
MEAN WATER lEVEL 20
MINIMUM STllL WATER lEVEL 20

Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
MOMENT
bending moment capacity 121-125
bending moment due to foundation fixity 42
bending moment diagrams for leg 55-58
can moment 129,133
effective applied moment
members in compression 120
members in tension 119
hull sag moment 52-53
leWhull connection moment 46,49-51
lower guide moment due to leg inclination 43
overturning moment 90,100,129
P-Llmoment 4345
second moment of area (legs) 54
MORISONS EQUATION 29,30,31,33,36
MOST PROBABLE MAXIMUM 100 - 101, 104 - 105
NATURAL PERIOD 90,93, 94 - 99
NONLINEAR MODELING METIIODS 44,77

non-linear elements 87
NON-STRUCfURAL ITEMS, LEG MODELING 34
NON-TUBULARS, HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS 38-39
OVERTURNING STABll..ITY 10,129

axis 124
moment 44,45,90, 129
P-Ll 4345
geometric stiffness modeling methods 44
linear-elastic displacement amplification 45
loads 52,53
manual addition ofP-Ll moments 45
non-linear modeling methods 44
PERIOD
natural 18,90,93,94 - 99
return 14,15,20
wave
associated 15
peak 16-17,90,99
zero-upcrossing 17
PINIONS 46-47,49-51,55-58,134
PLASTIC ANALYSIS 112

plastic moment 121,122
plastic stress distribution 114
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
PRELOAD 90,110
foundation assessment 130,131
foundation stability 70-72
leg penetration during 61-69
PUNCH-THROUGH 134
QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS 44,89,90,93,98 -100
RACKTEErn
fatigue 100
stiffuess due to 49
marine growth on 36
RANDOM WAVE ANALYSIS (see STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS)
REFERENCE LEVEL, WIND 14,27,28
REGULAR WAVE ANALYSIS (see DEIERMINISTIC ANALYSIS)
RESERVE LEG LENGTH 21
RESISTANCE FACTORS
foundations 130-131
holding system 134
overturning 129
structural members 115
RESPONSE ANALYSIS 89-107
RETIJRN PERIOD 14,15,20
SCOUR 22,80
SEABED REACTION POINT 42
SEABED SURFACE SURVEY 21
SEAFLOOR INSTABILITY 81
SHAlLOW GAS 22,81
SHAlLOW SEISMIC SURVEY 22,23
SHAPE COEFFICIENTS FOR WIND LOADING 29
SHEAR FORCE DIAGRAMS 55-58
SHIELDING 34
SHOCK PADS 50,51
SHORTCRESTEDNESS (WAVE SPREADING) 17-18,98,102-103

Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT 14,15,17
SINGlE DEGREE OF FREEDOM ANALOGY 98-99
SLENDER SECTIONS
hydrodynamic loads 29
structural considerations 114, 118 , 123 -125, 127
SLIDING CHECK 70,72-73, 130-l31
SMOOTH VALVES, HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR roBULARS 36
SOIL SAMPLING 23,24
SOLIDIFICATION 34
SPECIRUM (WAVE) 16-18

JONSWAP 16-17,93
Pierson-Moskowitz 16-17,93
SPLIT roBE CHORD, HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS 38
SPUOCAN
modeling 34,52
partial spudcan embedment 70
spudcan foundation model 62
spudcan geometries 61,62
spudcan-pile interaction 86
STIFFNESS
due to chord rack 49
for natural period estimation 95-98
geometric stiffness modeling methods 44
STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS
dynamic analysis 93,94,100,101,104,105
hydrodynamic modeling 34
kinematic extrapolation 31
wave height for (scaled) 15
wave spectra 16-17
wave theory 31
STORM DIRECTIONS, RANGE OF 42
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 42-53

fatigue analysis 18,42,107
foundation fixity 42-43,73-81
general conditions 42
leg inclination 43
load application 52-53
P-~effects 43-45
range of storm directions 42
response analysis 89 -105
seabed reaction point 42
structural modeling 46-52
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
definitions 113
structural strength check 110-127
STRUCTURAL MODELING 46-52

combination 3-leg model 47
combination leg model 49
detailed 3-leg model 47
detailed leg model 48
equivalent 3-stick-Ieg model 47
equivalent leg model 49
fixation systems 46,51
general considerations 46-47
jacking systems 46,51
jack-case and bracing 51
leg-hull connection modeling 49-51
model applicability 47
pinions 47,51
rack tooth stiffuess 49
shock pad 51
single detailed leg model 48
spudcan modeling 52
STRUCTURAL STRENGTH CHECK 110-127

AISCcode 101-126,127
axial strength
structural member in compression 116-119
structural member in tension 116
bending strength 121-125
biaxial bending exponent 125,128
compact sections 114
axial strength 116 -119
bending strength 121 - 125
effective applied moment
members in compression 120
members in tension 119
effective length factors 117,128
factored loads 110-114
factored resistance 110, 115, 127
interaction equations 115
local buckling 116-119,121-125
limitations 112-113
load and resistance factor design 110-111,127
member joints 127
noncompact sections 122
axial strength 117
bending strength 122
other geometries 127
resistance factors 112,115,127,134
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
STRUCTIJRAL STRENGTII CHECK. (Continued)

slender sections 114
axial strength 118-119
bending strength 123 -125
structural components - stiffened and unstiffened 113
structural members 113
structural strength check 110-127
torsional buckling (lateral) 121
yield stress 112,114,117
STRUCTIJRAL SYSTEM (FOR DYNAMICS) 91-93

damping 91,102
masses 91,95
stiffness 94,95-98
STRUCTIJRE CONDmON ASSESS:MENT 10,135
STRUCfURE INTERFERENCE, CURRENT 33,34
TEMPERATURE - AIR AND WATER 20

TIIREE lEG MODEL
combination 3-leg model 47
detailed 3-leg model 47
equivalent 3-stick-Ieg model 47
TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS 94,101,104,105
TRIANGULAR CHORD, HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS 39
TIJBULARS, HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS 36
VERTICAL lEG REACTION, FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT 130-133
WATER lEVEL 20
chartdatmn 20
extreme still water level 20
lowest astronomical tide 20
mean water level 20
minimtnn still water level 20
WAVES 14-18
Airy wave theory 15,31
breaking waves 19,31
crest elevation 15,20
directionality function 17,102
extreme wave height 14
freak waves 20
kinematic extrapolation 31
maximmn height 14,15
period
associated 15
peak 16-17
retmn 14,15,20
zero-upcrossing 16-17
Rev 2, Jan 2002
INDEX (Continued)
WAYES (Continued)
shortcrestednes (spreading) 17,98,102-103
significant height 14
significant height (scaled) 15,17
spectrum
JONSWAP 16-17,93
Pierson-Moskowitz 16-17,93
steepness 17
WEIGH!'
center of gravity 13,14,114,129 - 133
minimwn elevated weight 13
WIND 14,27-29
force calculation 27-29
height coefficient 28
load application 53
profile 14,28,29
reference level 14,27-28
shape coefficient 29
velocity 14,27-28
YIElD STRESS 112,114,117
YIEl..D SURFACE, FOUNDATION FIXITY 74-75
ZERO-UPCROSSING WAVE PERIOD 16-17

COMMENTARIES TO
FIRST EDITION -MAY 1994

(REVISION 2 - JAN 2002)

Rev I May 1997 Changes made to pages 12, 28, 31, 82, 88, 115, 125, 152, 168, 173, and 188.
Revised areas indicated by sidelines thus: I
Rev 2 Jan 2002 Changes made to pages.
]]3,115,128,129,144,161,173
Revised areas indicated by double sidelines thus: II
Commentaries to Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Page 2
Mobile Jack-Up Units Rev 2, Jan 2002
PREAMBLE
These Commentaries to the Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-
Up Units (PRACTICE) have been written to provide background information, supporting
documentation, and additional or alternative calculation methods as applicable.
The reader should recognize that the information presented herein should only be taken in
conjunction with the PRACTICE and that the cautions and limitations discussed in
Section 1 of the PRACTICE apply.
CONTENTS
C3 COMMENTARIES TO ASSESSMENT INPUT CONDITIONS 12
C3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS - GENERAL 12
C3.4 WIND 12
C3.5 WAVES 13
C3.5.1 Determining Wave Heights for Regular and Irregular
Wave Analysis
C3.5.1.1 Significant Wave Height for Stochastic
Irregular Waves Analysis.
C3.5.1.2 Wave Height for Regular Wave Analyses
C3.5.3 Alternative formulation for wave spectrum.
C3.5.4 Spreading
C3.7 WATER LEVELS AND AIRGAP 20

Glossary of terms for Section C3 21
References for Section C3 22
C4 COMMENTARIES TO CALCULATION METHODS - HYDRODYNAMIC 23

AND WIND FORCES
C4.1 INTRODUCTION 23
C4.2 WIND FORCE CALCULATIONS 23
C4.3 HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES 24

C4.3.1 General
C4.3.2 Drag forces
C4.3.3 Inertia forces
C4.4 WAVE THEORIES 27

C4.4.1 General
C4.4.2 Regular wave analysis
C4.4.3 Irregular wave analysis
C4.5 CURRENT 31
C4.5.1 General
C4.5.2 Combination with wave particle velocities
C4.5.3 Reduction of current by the actuator disc formula
C4.5.4 Current stretching
C4.6 LEG HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL 32

C4.6.1 General
C4.6.2 Length of members
C4.6.3 Spudcan
C4.6.4 Shielding and Solidification
C4.6.5 Equivalent drag coefficient
C4.6.6 Equivalent Inertia coefficient
CONTENTS (Continued)
C4.7 HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR LEG MEMBERS 34

C4.7.1 General
C4.7.2 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Tubulars
C4.7.2.1 General
C4.7.2.2 Literature survey and recommended values
C4.7.2.3 Marine Growth dependence
C4. 7.2.4 Definition of relevant parameters
C4.7.2.5 Dependence on roughness
C4.7.2.6 Keulegan Carpenter number dependence
C4.7.2.7 Reynold's number dependence
C4. 7.3 Marine Growth Thickness
C4. 7.4 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Brackets
C4.7.5 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Chords
C4.7.5.1 Split tube chords
C4.7.5.2 Triangular chords
C4.7.6 Other shapes
C4.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 58
Appendices to Section C4
C4.A Example of Equivalent Model Computations 66
C4.B Comparison cases to assess implications of PRACTICE 70
formulation
C4.C Comparison of test results for chords 75
CS COMMENTARIES TO CALCULATION METHODS - STRUCTURAL 78

ENGINEERING
C5.2 GENERAL 78
C5.3 GLOBAL RESPONSE 79
C5.4 DISCUSSION OF THE LEG-HULL CONNECTION 80
C5.5 DETERMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR EQUIVALENT MODELLING OF LEG 82

AND LEG-HULL CONNECTION
C5.6 LOAD APPLICATION 84
C5.7 EVALUATION OF FORCES 84
C5.A Derivation of alternative geometric stiffness formulation for P-Ll effects 90
C6 COMMENTARIES TO CALCULATION METHODS - GEOTECHNICAL 98

ENGINEERING
C6.2 PREDICTION OF FOOTING PENETRATION DURING PRELOADING 98

C6.2.1 Analysis method for leg penetration prediction
C6.2.2 Penetration analysis for clays
C6.2.3 Penetration analysis for silica sands
C6.2.4 Penetration analysis for carbonate sands
C6.2.5 Penetration in silts
C6.2.6 Penetration analysis for layered soils
C6.2.6.1 Squeezing of clay
C6.2.6.3 Punch-through: Dense sand over soft clay
C6.2.7 Summary
C6.3 FOUNDATION STABILITY ASSESSMENT 111

C6.3.3 & C6.3.4 Bearing capacity for inclined loading
C6.4 OTHER ASPECTS OF JACK-UP UNIT INSTABILITY 118

C6.4.1 Leaning instability
C6.4.2 Footprint considerations
C6.4.3 Scour
C6.4.4 Seafloor instability
C6.4.6 Spudcan-pile interaction
GlOSSary of terms for Section C6 120
C7 COMMENTARIES TO CALCULATION METHODS - DETERMINATION OF 126

RESPONSES
C7.2 QUASI-STATIC EXTREME RESPONSE WITH INERTIAL LOADSET 126
C7.3 CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE 126
C7.4 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE EXCITATION PERIOD 128
C7.5 METHODS FOR DIRECT DETERMINATION OF THE DYNAMIC RESPONSES 129
C7.A Derivation of jack-up stiffness equation 132
C7.B Details of appropriate dynamic analysis methods 143
C7.B.l Analysis methods
C7.B .1.1 Frequency domain methods
C7.B.l.2 Time domain methods
C7.B.2 (see overleaf)
Appendices to Section C7 (continued)

C7.B.2 Methods for determining the MPM 143
C7.B.2.1 Use of drag-inertia parameter (or equivalent) 145
determined from mean and standard deviation
of a frequency or time-domain analysis.
C7.B.2.2 Fit Weibull distribution to results of a 146
number of time-domain simulations to
determine responses at required probability
level and average the results.
C7.B.2.3 Fit Gumbel distribution to histogram of peak 14S
responses from a number of time-domain
simulations to determine responses at
required probability level.
C7.B.2.4 Apply Winterstein's Hermite polynomial method 149
to the results of time domain simulation(s).
C8 COMMENTARIES TO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 162

C8.0 BACKGROUND TO PARTIAL LOAD FACTORS 162
CS.O.l General
C8.0.2 Fundamental Question
CS.0.3 Solution
C8.0.3.1 Probabilistic Description of Input
C8.0.3.2 Limit States
C8.0.3.3 Response Model
C8.0.3.4 Safety Index vs. Safety Factor
C8.0.3.5 Reference or Target Safety Level
C8.0.3.6 Derivation/Calibration of Safety Factors
C8.1 STRUCTURAL STRENGTH CHECK 165

CS.1.1 Introduction
C8.1.2 Definitions
C8.1.3 Factored loads
C8.1.4 Assessment of members - excluding stiffened and high
D/t ratio tubulars
CS.l.4.1 General interaction equations
C8.1.4.213 Nominal Axial Strength
C8.1.4.4/5 Effective Applied Moment
CS.1.4.6 Nominal Bending Strength
C8.1.5 Assessment of members - other geometries
C8.3 FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT 184
C8.7 STRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT 186

CS.7.1 Introduction
CS.7.2 Scope of condition assessment
C8.7.3 Condition monitoring

LIST OF FIGURES
C3.5.1 Comparison of wave crest elevation predicted skewness and 16

observed data at 70m in the North Sea.
C4.3.1 Oscillating drag coefficient vs. motion amplitude to diameter 26
ratio xolD for given reduced velocities.
C4.4.1 Range of validity of different wave theories. 29
C4.4.2 Surface elevation, and velocity profiles for deterministic 30
regular waves.
C4.4.3 Linearization w.r.t. wave heights. 30
C4.7.1 Comparison between measured and computed forces on a pile up 42
to free surface
C4.7.2 Drag coefficient for rough cylinders at high Reynold's number 44
C4.7.3 Drag coefficient for post critical Reynolds numbers for rough 44
cylinders.
C4.7.4 Effect of roughness on drag coefficient and vortex shedding 45
frequency for post-critical Reynolds numbers.
C4.7.5 Recommended values for the drag coefficient as function of 45
relative roughness.
C4.7.6 Drag coefficient dependence on KC number. 47
C4.7.7 Drag coefficient dependence on KC-number for clean cylinders 47
of the Ocean Test Structures.
C4.7.8 Drag coefficient dependence on KC-number for barnacle covered 48
cylinders of the Ocean Test Structure.
C4.7.9 Recommended drag coefficient dependence on KC for cylinders 48
in waves, at high Reynolds numbers.
C4.7.1O Suggested Reynolds dependence in existing guidance. 49
C4.7.11 Reynolds dependence of drag coefficient in test results. 49
C4.7.12 Reynolds dependence of drag coefficient. 50
C4.7.13 Recommended values for Reynolds dependence for different 50
values of relative roughness, KC>40.
C4.7.14 Definition of directions and dimensions for a split tube 53
chord.
C4.7.15 Drag coefficient at 90° related to the rack width W. 53
C4.7.16 Alternative interpolation formulations fit to data. 54
C4.7.17 Comparison with some current practices for regular wave 54
=
analysis. WID 1.24 and the scaling regular/irregular =0.7,
valid below MWL+2.0m.
C4.7.18 Definition of dimensions and angles for a triangular chord. 56
C4.7.19 Drag coefficients for basic sections in uniform flow. 57
C4.7.20 Comparison between TEES test results and the PRACTICE. 57
C4.A.l Model of a bay for test purposes 66
C4.A.2 Square bay with triangular chords 68
C4.C.l Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, ratio 75
=
WID 1.08
C4.C.2 Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, ratio 75
=
WID 1.10
C4.C.3 Comparison of PRACICE formulation with model tests, ratio 76
=
WID 1.13
C4.C.4 Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, rack 76
=
WID 1.18
C4.C.5 Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, rack 77
=
WID 1.24
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
C5.1 Responses/reactions from first order analyses 85

C5.2 P-~ and leg inclination effects 85
C5.3 Contribution of second order effects to first order responses 86
C5A Representative leg-hull connection 86
C5.5 Leg-hull connection component combinations 87
C5.6 Guide clearances 87
C5.7 Jacking system backlash 87
C5.8 Types of leg guide arrangement 88
C5.9 Unopposed and opposed pinion arrangements 88
C5.A.l Analysis model 94
C5.A.2 Load application 94
C6.1 Comparison of bearing capacity analytical procedures for 98
shallow foundations and jack-ups.
C6.2 Stability factors for cylindrical excavations in clay. 99
C6.3 Conical footing bearing capacity - problem definition and 101
notation.
C6A Depth of failure zone in sand 107
C6.5 Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - sand over clay - load 109
spread method.
C6.6 Foundation bearing failure modes. 110
C6.7 Verticallhorizontalload envelopes for footings in clay. 112
C6.8 Foundation combined verticallhorizontalloading on sand 114
- comparison of design criteria and observed data.
C6.9 Verticallhorizontalload envelopes for footings in sand. 114
C6.1O Vertical load-displacement curves for leeward and windward 117
legs.
C7.1 Periods for wave force cancellation and reinforcement as a 131
function of leg spacing.
C7.A.l Graphical solution of equation (24) 140
C7.B.1 Part 1 - Procedure for determining inertialloadset 151
C7.B.1 Part 2 - Procedure for determining (distributed) inertial 152
loadset
C7.B.2 Time domain procedure for determining mean and standard 153
deviation.
C7.B.3 Frequency domain procedure for determining mean and standard 154
deviation.
C7.BA Procedure for estimating the extreme response. 155
C7.B.5 Procedure for determining the mpm-factor of the static 157
response.
C7.B.6 Ratio C R of most probable maximum to standard deviation as a 160
Function of drag-inertia parameter K for N =1000 peaks.
C7.B.7 Comparison between the normalized spectra S11(oo), Sc»(oo) and 160
SPM(ro)
C8.0.1 Link between safety factor and safety index 164
C8.l.1 Stress-strain curve - ultimate strength much bigger than 169
yield strength.
C8.l.2 Stress-strain curve - yield strength close to ultimate 169
strength.
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
CS.1.3 Stress-strain curves for two component member for which 169
addition of nominal strengths is permissible.
CS.1.4 Stress-strain curves for two component member in which one 170
component fractures before the other is loaded to its nominal
strength.
CS.1.5 Stress-strain curves for components of example member. 170
CS.1.6 Example hybrid chord section. 172
CS.1.7 Fully plastic stress distribution. 172
CS.1.S Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords with double 175
central racks.
CS.1.9 Interaction equations/curves for split tubular chords with 17S
double central racks.
CS.1.l0 Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords with offset ISO
double racks.
CS.1.l1 Interaction equations/curves for triangular chords with IS2
single racks.
LIST OF TABLES
C3.5.1 =
Regular Wave Analysis Normalized Results, CDeDe 5.13 over the 14
full depth.
C3.5.2 Scaling Factor Yd on loads to comply with Airy Wheeler in 15
Irregular Seas.
C4.7.1 Survey of Relevant Literature on CM - and CD-values for 37
Tubulars.
C4.7.2 Recommended Roughness Values for Tubulars. 43
C4.7.3 Recommended Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Tubulars. 43
C4.7.4 Comparison of Drag Coefficients for Simple Sections and Chord 56
CDpr Evaluated From tests.
C4.A.l Computations of Equivalent model for heading 0° to be used in 66
Site Assessment for z < MWL +2m, chord WID = 1.13.
C4.A.2 Computations of Equivalent model for heading 0° to be 67
Compared with Model Test Results, Chord WID = 1.13, Model Scale
1:4.264.
C4.A.3 Computations of Equivalent model for heading 30° to be 67
Compared with Model Test Results, Chord WID = 1.13, Model Scale
1:4.264.
C4.A.4 Square Bay with Triangular Chords, Equivalent Model to be 6S
used in Site Assessment z < MWL + 2m.
C4.A.5 Square Bay with Triangular Chords, Equivalent Model to be 69
used in Comparison with Test Results, Model Scale 1:4.256.
C4.B.l Comparison including wave height scaling, water depth = 30m, 72
=
Hsrp 10m.
C4.B.2 =
Comparison including wave height scaling, water depth 90m, 73
Hsrp = 14m.
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
C5.A.1 Verification of Simple Procedure for P-~ Effect with Exact 93

Solution. Wave Loading Case.
C5.A.2 Verification of Simple Procedure for P-~ Effect with Exact 93
Solution. Wind Loading Case.
C6.1 Ne' factors as a function of embedment, rate of increase of 103
shear strength with depth and roughness, cone angle 30°.
C6.2 Ne ' factors as a function of embedment, rate of increase of 103
C7.1 Recommended combinations of the structural system and 130
environmental excitation models for a dynamic analysis.
CS.l.1 Data for tubular chords with double central racks. 176
CS.l.2 Data for split tubular chords with double central racks. 179
CS.l.3 Data for tubular chords with offset double racks. lSI
CS.l.4 Data for triangular chords with single racks. IS3
C3 COMMENTARIES TO ASSESSMENT INPUT CONDITIONS
C3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS· GENERAL
The PRACTICE does not permit the use of full joint probability (assessment return
period) environmental data. Nevertheless some account of joint probabilities is permitted
as noted below:
Seasonally adjusted data may be used if appropriate (Section 3.3.1).

Note: When seasonal data are specified, the data should not be divided into periods
of less than one month and the values so calculated should generally be factored such
that the extreme for the most severe period equals the all-year value for the required
assessment return period.
Where directional data are available, these may be considered (Section 3.3.1).
Note: When directional data are specified, the data should normally not be divided
into sectors of less than 30° and the directional values so calculated should generally
be factored such that the extreme for the most severe sector equals the omni-
directional value for the required assessment return period and season where
applicable. In certain areas 30° sectors may be inappropriate; caution should be
exercised if an assessment heading falls marginally outside a sector with higher data.
The downwind (vector) component of the maximum surface flow of the mean spring
tidal current is specified rather than the maximum spring tidal current (Section 3.6.1).
Site specific infonnation may be used to determine an appropriate combination of

wind driven and surge currents (Section 3.6.1).
C3.4 WIND
The PRACTICE selects the 1 minute sustained wind for determining the wind loadings
on the jack-up. In some instances the wind data will be supplied only for an alternative
averaging period. The conversion to the 1 minute sustained value can not be uniquely
defined as the conversion can be a function of various parameters, including the wind
speed itself. In the absence of site specific data the following formula may be applied [1],
providing that the design stonn is of longer duration than the supplied averaging period
(the supplied averaging period may exceed the storm duration in areas of the world where
the extreme winds are due to squalls, thunderstorms, etc.):
t
Vref = Vs[1 - 0.047In( ~)]
ts
where;
Vref = wind velocity for reference averaging period required by PRACTICE
(1 minute).
Vs = wind velocity for supplied averaging period, ts.
tref = averaging period required by PRACTICE (l minute).
ts = averaging period for supplied wind velocity~
C3.5 WAVES
C3.5.1 Determining Wave Heights for Regular and Irregular Wave Analysis
The wave heights utilized by the PRACTICE for wave load calculations are related to the
return period significant wave height for a three-hour stonn, Hsrp. The PRACTICE
however recognizes that this data may not always be available to the assessor and
therefore provides relationships between Hsrp and H max , the individual extreme wave
height for the assessment return period with an annual probability of exceedance of
lIreturn period. The assessment return period is nonnally taken as 50 years in which case
Hmax(so) is the wave height with a 2% annual probability of exceedance.
Hsrp and the associated period are nonnally determined through a direct extrapolation of
measured or hindcast site specific significant wave heights. Hmax may be determined
either from an extrapolation of the distribution of individual wave heights over the
assessment return period or by the application of a multiplication factor to Hsrp.
It is noted that the 'extreme wave height' of a regular wave, Hmpm , determined from a 3-
hour stonn segment is the most probable maximum (MPM) wave height, defined as the
distance from the extreme crest to the following trough. Using this definition, the MPM
wave height from the 3-hour stonn segment is given by:
Hmpm = 1.68 Hsrp
This relationship is confinned by the data of [2] for individual stonns. However, Hmpm
must not be confused with Hmax and must not be used to determine the value of Hsrp on
which an assessment is based. This is because Hmax includes site specific considerations
of potentially longer durations of stonns (including build up and decay) and the additional
probability contributions of other return period stonns (i.e. 20, 30, 40, 100-year, etc.,
return period stonns). Consequently the ratio HmaxlHsrp is larger than the ratio Hmpn/Hsrp.
A consequence of the site specific nature of the derivation of Hmax is that there is no
unique relationship between Hmax and Hsrp applicable to all areas of the world. Thus, if a
specified return period maximum wave height is given at a particular location there is no
consistent way to derive Hsrp without knowledge of how the maximum (Hmax) wave
height was derived originally.
Average factors between Hsrp and Hmax have been derived for a North Sea and a Gulf of
Mexico location for a 50-year return period. Without further infonnation, the North Sea
factors can be generalized to any non-tropical revolving stonn area and the Gulf of
Mexico factors can be generalized to tropical revolving stonn areas. These factors are:
Environmental Conditions HmaxlHsro

Tropical revolving stonns 1.75
Non-tropical stonns 1.86
The Dean's stream function/Stoke's fifth order theories predict higher peak than trough
amplitudes, increasing the maximum velocities and the wetted surface compared with the
Airy theory. In Figure C4.4.2 the difference in the profiles is illustrated. Using the same
specified wave height this difference may be seen in terms of the overturning moment,
base shear or deck displacement.
A number of computations were performed to determine the differences due to wave

kinematics on selected Jack-up designs. Some results are summarized in Tables C3.5.1
and C3.5.2. See also Appendix C4.B.
Table C3.5.1 Regular wave analysis normalized results,

~eDe =5.13 over the full water depth
Theory Water Wave Crest Base Overt. Dean's

depth H:T amp. shear moment overturning!
m m:sec m MN MNm other
Airy
Const. 30 15114 7.5 3.577 91.607 1.74
Airy
Wheeler 15114 7.5 3.266 82.782 1.93
Stoke's
fifth 15/14 10.22 5.211 156.16 1.02
Dean's
stream 15114 10.42 5.243 159.45 1.
Airy 15114 7.5 2.916 160.83 1.12
Const. 70 28/16 14.0 14.121 677.69 1.44
Airy 15115 7.5 2.563 138.80 1.30
Wheeler 28/16 14.0 13.446 636.53 1.53
Stoke's 15/14 8.41 3.171 180.80 1.00
fifth 28.16 19.17 18.264 976.62 1.00
Dean's 15/14 8.41 3.161 180.30 1.
stream 28/16 19.33 18.136 972.54 1.
In Table C3.5.2 the deterministic analysis is based on application of a various Hmax to

Hs relationships. The Stochastic analysis refers to extreme values determined from time
domain analyses by fitting a three parameter Weibull distribution to the response peaks
and reading the extreme as the 0.999 fractile, approximating a three hour storm
extreme.
The results show dependence on the choice of wave kinematics differing with wave
height.
Table C3.5.2 Scaling factor yd on loads to comply with
Airy Wheeler in irregular seas, [11].
BASE SHEAR: Airy Airy Airy Stokes

Wheeler No stretch Constant fifth
Stochastic
irregular seas 1.00 1.03 0.83
Deterministic 1) 0.79 0.84 0.69 0.66
regular waves 2) 0.66 0.69 0.56 0.66
3) 0.71 0.75 0.61 0.66
4) 0.92
OVERTURNING MOMENT:
Stochastic
irregular seas 1.00 1.10 0.79-
Deterministic 1) 0.81 0.93 0.69 0.66
regular waves 2) 0.67 0.76 0.56 0.66
3) 0.72 0.83 0.61 0.66
4) 0.93
Water depth 110m, Hs = 13.0m, Tp =Tass = 17.0 sec, uniform current V = 0.4 mls
1) Hmax = 1. 86Hs
2) crest as Stokes
3) Hmax = 1.86Hs * 1.07 except Stokes.
4) Hmax = 1.60Hs (pRACTICE recommendation)
Wheeler stretching basis for normalized results, i.e.:
Airy Wheeler stochastic load = Yd (other load)
C3.5.1.1 Significant Wave Height for Stochastic Irregular Waves Analysis.
Only Airy theory is currently applicable together with a stochastic irregular seas
analysis, and in Section 4.4 the Wheeler stretching is recommended for describing the
kinematics to the instantaneous surface.
It is accepted that the increasing assymetry described by higher order theories such as
Stokes is appropriate. The asymmetry can also be seen in recorded data as skewness of
the waves, as shown in Figure C3.5.1. Since Airy theory has certain limitations, a
practical way to compensate for the assymetry is to increase the significant wave height
used as input to the force computations. In order to show that a scaling of significant
wave height is appropriate, and to determine the absolute values of the scaling factors,
one needs to decide which theory is correct at a given wave condition. Based on the
good fit to test results in wave tank measurements, [6], the Wheeler stretching is found
to be a best fit. However, due to the asymmetry of wind generated ocean waves in
shallow water, this agreement is judged to be valid only for large water depths. In [7] it
is also indicated that a higher peak than trough is appropriate.
Here it is assumed that the significant wave height should have a scaling factor close to
1.0 for Wheeler stretching at 110m using irregular wave analysis. At shallower water
depths a scaling factor in excess of 1.0 should be due to the wave asymmetry.
In [8] a scaling of wave crests is suggested based on the Stokes wave profiles.
Comparisons are made both with data for North Sea conditions (d 70 m), see also =
Figure C3.5.1, and shallow waters (d == 5.0 m) in the Baltic Sea implying that this may
be a general model. A correction proportional to wave steepness is deduced which
shows fair agreement with the data.
Tp:s) <1" 7-11 8-, '·IU 18-11 u·u u-u 1:1-14 14-15
Hs 0.076
0.3 (m) 2996
C')
<2 1021
~ 0.105 0.102 0.107
2-3 2.974 2966 2.671
194 61 1
'"'"4> I 0.121 0.118 0.088
0.2
~
4> I
3-4 3.001 3.007 2.912
43 59 11
#l f 0.184 0.147 0.111
2991 3.001 2.912
4-5
§ , 3 33 11
.:
0.1 I
'"
:>
4>
I 5-6
0.194 0.135 0.148
2.674 3.021 2.934
~ 1 20 9
4> 0.126 u.r14 U.I4l!
:>
6-7 2.936 2978 3.018
ti 0.0 3 1 2
0.209 0.141
7-8 2.815 3.086
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 2 3
0.168
8-9 3.096
Average Steepness keJ'l 1
0.256
9-10 2.548
1
Figure C3.5.1 - Comparison of wave crest elevation predicted skewness

and observed data at 70 m in the North Sea [8]
The crest height correction formula may be simplified neglecting the higher order terms
to be [8]:
11/11 == 1. + 0.6 U3 + 0.5 (<l4 - 3)
where;
11s = crest elevation by Stokes

11 = crest elevation by Airy
U3 = 2.5 D2 Hs / T/ ' <l4 - 3 == (1.6U3)2 : Skewness & kurtosis relations
D2 = coth (kd) [1 + 3/(2sinh2(kd)] : Depth attenuation
k = (21TiTi/g : Wave number
The data and the model indicate that the skewness, U3, is about 0.08 - 0.2 for large
seastates at 70 m water depths giving a correction of
1.05-1.12 on the crest height compared with a linear model. The forces on a Jack-up
structure increase proportionally as the square (or more) of the elevation. Applying a
correction for the square of the bias in wave crest the correction for 70m should be in
the range 1.10-1.25, depending on wave steepness.
By combining the above suggested formulae a correction for the Wheeler stretching in a
stochastic analysis may be deduced as:
Hs = 1.0 + 1.5 D2 Hsrp / Tp2
The D2 factor includes a dependence on the wave number for individual; waves. This is
not suitable for the purpose of inclusion in the PRACTICE, since there is no unique
wave number for a seastate.
The elevation is not the only parameter to be considered and others; are:
the depth attenuation over water depth,
the profiles are not similar in horizontal directions,
and forces at some distance lose correlation.
This gives a different scaling than that deduced from the wave crest height only.
Based on the above a significant wave height for stochastic/irregular wave analysis
using Airy waves and Wheeler stretching is recommended as:
Hs = [1 + 10 HsfT/ exp(-d/25) ]Hsrp
This removes the direct link to the Stokes profile as suggested in [8], but contains the
linear dependence on steepness and a depth dependence with an exponential decay.
Further, by inserting the limited range of wave steepness specified in Section 3.5 the
scaling may be further simplified. Assuming a peak enhancement factor of y = 3.5, the
peak period may be approximated as TpfTz =1.3, giving a range for
0.046 < HsfTp2 < 0.057 for all areas. A ratio HsfT/ =0.05 is therefore introduced, such
that the significant wave height is recommended as:
Hs = [1 + 0.5 exp(-d/25)] Hsrp
The scaling factor should be limited to a water depth above, say 25m.
A similar scaling on wave height for AirylWheeler stretching is currently being applied
indirectly in design specifications, [9], where it is stated that the wave heights according
to Airy should be two times the peak amplitude predicted by the Stokes wave profile.
The above scaling is an approximation. It would be more correct to account for the
wave asymmetry directly in the generation of the sea surface elevation by, for example,
the methods indicated in [8]. The significant wave height Hsrp could then be applied
directly.
Scaling for other stretching techniques combined with Airy waves may be deduced for
stochastic, irregular waves and based on computational comparisons for different wave
heights and water depths. However, this will not give exactly the same force profile
over the leg and discrepancies in force prediction will occur. Such scaling is therefore
not included in the PRACTICE.
For computational comparisons using this wave height scaling, see also Appendix
C4.B.
C35_12 Wave Height for Regular Wave Analyses
The selection of wave height to be applied in a particular analysis approach (regular or

irregular waves) is recommended based on matching the loads resulting from the
combination of the wave height and kinematics models, as recommended in Section 4.4.
The scaling of wave heights is introduced as an alternative to the scaling of drag
coefficients, using the wave height relation Hmax = 1.86Hs •
For regular wave analyses the wave asymmetry is properly accounted for, but the
irregularity of the sea surface and the wave spreading may not be modeled properly. As
indicated in Tables C3.5.1 and C3.5.2 a reduction factor is required to give similar forces
as predicted by an irregular seas simulation if Hmax = 1.86Hs . In [3] a reduction of the
drag coefficient by a factor 0.7 is chosen and in [4] a reduction of wave kinematics is
chosen. Classification societies generally specify lower CD values than specified in
Section 4 and these apply to regular wave analyses.
Considering that the computations with regular waves are made with a kinematics model
that has been documented in [5] to be somewhat conservative a reduction factor is
appropriate to arrive at realistic force estimates.
Accepting that a scaling factor on kinematics is applicable, a practical way of

implementing this in the PRACTICE is to reduce the wave height to be used for force
computations in regular wave analyses. This may be more practical than using a factor on
kinematics as most software on the market does not include such a scaling factor.
Equivalent wave heights are suggested as:
lLIet = 1.60Hsrp
The scaling factors on kinematics may be implemented assuming that the load effect is
proportional to wave height to the power 2.2, remembering that CD'S should not be scaled.
As a comparison with previous practices the relationship lLIet ::::: 1.60Hsrp may also be
compared with the reduction of CD by a factor 0.7 as recommended in [3] in combination
with the wave height Hmax =1.86Hs . By assuming that load effects are proportional to the
ratio of wave heights to the power 2.2, the scaling becomes (1.60/1.86)2.2 = (0.86)2.2 =
0.72, indicating that this is not lower than current practice. The computational results of
Table C3.5.2 indicate also that scaling of 0.66 would give similar static forces as the
irregular seas simulation at large water depths. See also Appendix C4.B for a comparison
of the computational results, related to other practices.
C3.5.2 The wave heights specified in the PRACTICE for use in airgap determination will be
generally applicable. Special consideration may, however, be required in areas subject to
Freak Waves or where the 1.5m clearance will not be adequate to cover the increase in
wave height associated with higher return period waves. It should be noted that certain
regulatory bodies require the use of higher return period waves (e.g. 10,000 years) for the
determination of airgap requirements.
C3.5.3 Alternative formulation for wave spectrum
The following alternative, and rather restrictive, representation of the wave spectrum by
the power density of wave surface elevation S1111(f) as a function of wave frequency may
be used:
ST111(f) = ag2(21t)-4(f)-sexp(-1.25/(Tpf)4)f
where;
a = equilibrium range parameter =0.036 - 0.0056Tpf ~Hmo2
g = acceleration due to gravity
q = exp(-(Tpf_I)2/2cr2)
cr = spectral peakwidth parameter = 0.07 for T pf <= 1
= 0.09 for Tpf > 1
Hmo = estimate of Hs significant wave height (meters)
Tp = spectral peak period (seconds)
f = frequency (Hz)
Y = peak enhancement factor
= exp(l/0.287[1-0.1975aTp4/Hmo2 n
The above definition yields a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum when y = 1 and Tp = 5-V(Hs)
with Tp in seconds and Hs in meters.
C3.5.4 Spreading
The PRACTICE provides a formulation which may be used to incorporate the effects of
wave spreading in the analysis. The power constants recommended [10] imply that the
extreme seastate is close to long-crested, and that there is therefore little angular
distribution of wave energy about the mean direction.
It should be noted that where significant spreading exists it may be non-conservative to

assume a long-crested sea.
In [4] a reduction formula is suggested which reduces the velocity by a factor 'primarily
accounting for wave spreading':
urectfu = -V[(2n+l)/(2n+2)]
where;
2
n = the exponent in the cos De spreading function at T p'
u = the computed velocity for long crested waves,
Ured = the reduced horizontal velocity.
For a range of the spreading exponent, 2 < n < 3, the range of the scaling is 0.91 < Ured/u
< 0.94. This corresponds to a reduction of the forces by a factor ranging from 0.833-
0.875. To use such a spreading factor in reducing overall forces on a structure is
debatable, and especially so for jack-up structures. There may be cases where the
inclusion of the spreading in irregular seas results in higher forces for some headings.
If the leg spacing corresponds to a wave period, inducing opposing wave forces for
different legs coinciding with the first resonance period, the forces will in fact be
amplified when spreading is included. For jack-ups where the resonance period may
often be as high as 4-7 sec., the effect of wave spreading is believed to reduce forces.
However, the size of the reduction is dependent on the structure.
C3.7 WATER LEVELS AND AIRGAP
The PRACTICE references water depths to lowest astronomical tide (LAT). In some
instances the water depth may be referenced to Chart Datum. It is modem practice for
these reference levels in hydrographic surveys to be the same, however caution should
be exercised when using older data or navigation charts and the relation of Chart Datum
to LAT should be checked and any necessary corrections applied.
See also the Section C3.5.2 regarding wave heights for airgap determination.
Mobile Jack-Up Units Rev!2, Jan 2002
GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR SECTION C3
CDeDe = equivalent drag coefficient times effective diameter.

d = water depth.
D2 = depth attenuation.
f = frequency (Hz).
g = acceleration due to gravity.
H = wave height.
ILtet = reduced wave height which may be used in deterministic/regular wave force
calculations.
Hmax = maximum wave height for a given return period; used for airgap calculations.
Hmpm = wave height associated with Hsrp equivalent to the height between the extreme
crest and the following trough.
Hmo = estimate of Hs significant wave height (meters).
Hs = scaled significant wave height to be used in irregular seas simulation (meters).
Hsrp = significant wave height for assessment return period.
k = wave number.
n = the exponent in the CosnS spreading function at T p.
q exp(-(Tpf-l)2/2~)
Snn(f) = power density of wave surface elevation as a function of wave frequency.
tref = wind averaging period required by PRACTICE (1 minute).
ts = wind averaging period for supplied wind velocity.
T = wave period (seconds).
Tp = peak period in wave spectrum (seconds).
Tz = zero-upcrossing period of wave spectrum (seconds).
u = the computed velocity for long crested waves.
Ured = the reduced horizontal velocity.
V = current.
Vref = wind velocity for reference averaging period required by PRACTICE (1 minute).
Vs wind velocity for supplied averaging period, tu.
equilibrium range parameter =0.036 - 0.0056Tp / ~Hmo
2
a =
a3 = skewness.
~ = kurtosis.
Y = peak enhancement factor exp(1I0.287[1-0.1975aTp4/Hmo2
= n, for Tp in seconds
and Hmo in meters.
Yd = scaling of drag forces.
11s = crest elevation by Stokes.
11 = crest elevation by Airy theory.
(J = spectral peakwidth parameter = 0.07 for T pf <= 1
=
0.09 for Tpf > 1
REFERENCES FOR SECTION C3
1 Det Norske Veritas, Classification Notes No 30.5, 'Environmental Conditions and

Environmental Loads', H!3vik, March 1991.
2 Heideman J.C. and Schaudt K.J., 'Recommended Equations for Short-term Statistics of
Wave Heights and Crest Heights', 1 April 1987.
3 'Practice for the Site Specific Assessment of Jack-up Units', By Marine Technology
division, SIPM, EDP-5, The Hague, May 1989.
4 American Petroleum Institute, proposal for an update of the API-RP2A, 'Hydrodynamic

Force Guidelines for U.S. Waters', received 6 February 1992.
5 L. Skjelbreia and J .A. Hendricksen, 'Fifth-order Gravity Wave Theory', Proceedings of

Seventh Conference on Coastal Engineering, 1961, pp. 184-196.
6 J.E. Skjelbreia, G. Berek, Z.K. Bolen, O.T. Gudmestad, J.e. Heideman, R.D. Ohmart, N.
Spidsoe and A. Torum, 'Wave Kinematics in Irregular Waves', OMAE, Stavanger, 1991.
7 Health and Safety Executive, Petroleum Engineering Division, 'Offshore Installations:

Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification', London, 1990.
8 S.R. Winterstein, E.M. Bitner-Gregersen and K. Ronold, 'Statistical and Physical Models of
Nonlinear Random Waves', OMAE, Volume IT, Safety and Reliability, Stavanger, 1991,
pp.23-31.
9 OJ. Andersen, E. Frland and S. Haver, 'Design Basis, Environmental Conditions,

Statfjord', Statoil Report no. F&U-ST 88007, Stavanger, April 25, 1988.
10 S. Haver, 'On the Modelling of Short Crested Sea for Structural Response Calculations',
EurOMS, Trondheim, 20-22 August 1990.
Other project reports and related technical notes:
11 D. Karunakaren, 'Scaling of Hydrodynamic Loads According to Computational Models',

Technical memo no. 710762, SINTEF, Trondheim, July, 1991.
C4 COMMENTAruffiSTOCALCULATIONMETHODS-HYDRODYNANnCAND
WIND FORCES
C4.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this Section is to provide documentation of the numbers,

methods and formulations of the Section 4 of the PRACTICE.
This Section is limited to considering Jack-Up specific methods for wind loading on
legs and hulls and hydrodynamic forces acting on the legs under the action of waves
and current. Typical jack-up leg designs consist of legs with an open lattice frame
structure with typical member dimensions of O.25-1.0m in diameter. A special feature
are the racks fitted to the chord elements for jacking purposes. The fact that jack-ups
are mobile will also limit the marine growth.
The models, methods and coefficients for computing the forces are considered together
in the development of PRACTICE Section 4, and represent a consistent method such
that the whole Section should be considered in its entirety. This means that no
coefficients should be taken from this Section or Section 4 of the PRACTICE unless the
corresponding method is applied.
The Section is organized such that the main sub-sections have the same numbers as the
corresponding section in the PRACTICE. This means that Section C4.2 in this report
corresponds to section 4.2 in the PRACTICE and so on.
C4.2 WIND FORCE CALCULATIONS
The wind force acting on each block of the jack-up is obtained by mUltiplying the
pressure (which accounts for the elevation and shape of the block - see C4.2.2 and
C4.2.3 respectively) by projected area. The total wind force on the jack-up can then be
obtained by summing the wind forces over all the blocks. Shielding effects are not
normally included in the calculation, except that the wind area of the hull and
associated structures (excluding derrick and legs) may normally be taken as the profile
area viewed from the direction under consideration.
The wind speed varies with height since the boundary layer friction (which in increased
by the roughness of the sea surface) retards the wind near the sea surface. The lower
layers then retard those above them, resulting in increasing velocity above the sea level,
until the retarding forces reduce to zero.
A wind profile is normally used to represent the variation of wind speed with respect to
height. The PRACTICE recommends a power law of 10 (N =10) to represent the wind.
The wind speed measured at 10m above the mean sea level is normally used as the
reference in defining the wind speed profile. Alternatively, the height coefficients (Ch)
listed in Table 4.1 can be used to determine the wind speed at various heights.
Where a block has a vertical extent of more than 15m, it is recommended that it is sub-
divided and the appropriate height coefficients are applied to each part of the block.
The shape coefficients for various typical components of a jack-up are given in Table
4.2. Items with 'solid' faces are treated as individual blocks. A different approach is
used for open lattice structures, such as derricks, crane booms, helideck support
structure, flare booms and raw water towers, etc. Here Table 4.2 recommends the use
of 50% of the total projected profile area of the item (e.g. 50% of the product of the
derrick width overall and the vertical extent of block under consideration) in association
with the appropriate shape coefficient for the isolated shapes comprising the lattice.
For leg structures, the equivalent hydrodynamic coefficients on lattice legs may be
taken from Section 4.6. These will generally be the same as those for clean legs in large
velocities and long waves and hence the smooth values are generally recommended.
C4.3 HYDRODYNAlv1IC FORCES
C4.3.1 General
Jack-up leg sections are complex structures, usually made of slender members. The
best engineering tool available for computation of hydrodynamic forces is Morison's
equation. However, the limitations of Morison's equation should be recognized. For
single large diameter members/legs, which may be an alternative to lattice legs, more
appropriate theories and formulations for the inertia forces should be applied.
MacCamy and Fuch's [60] corrections on the inertia coefficients of vertical elements
may be an alternative for those structures.
A limitation on the application of Morison's equation to predict wave loads is

implemented. The limitation is set to:
A> 5Di (4.3.1)
where;
A = wave length and
Di = reference dimension of individual leg members (within a lattice leg).
The above limitation implies that the members should be small compared with the
waves.
Morison's equation [30] is an empirical relation given by a drag term plus an inertia
force term as:
M' = M'drag + M'inertia =0.5 P CD D IU x IU x + P CM (1tD /4) Ux
2
(4.3.2)
where;
CD = the drag coefficient.
CM = the inertia coefficient.
ux, Ux = the horizontal water particle velocity and acceleration.
D = the tubular diameter.
P = the density of fluid surrounding the tubular.
The above equation was established to be used for vertical circular cylinders in waves,
but has later been modified and generalized to account for current, inclined members
and relative velocity and acceleration. These extensions are further defined for use in
the PRACTICE and discussed in the following sections.
C4.3.2 Drag forces
For the drag part of the equation the extension from Morison's original formula is made
as:
~drag = 0.5 P CD D I vn I Vn (4.3.3)
where Vn is now introduced as the relative particle velocity normal to the local member
axis including current, taken as:
(4.3.4)
where;
Un + Ven = the combined particle velocity from wave and current by vectorial
summation normal to the member considered.
t n = the velocity of the considered member normal to its axis and in the
a = 0, if an absolute velocity is to be applied, i.e. neglecting the structural
velocity.
1, if relative velocity is to be included. May only be used for
stochastic/random wave force analyses if:
Ured = uTnIDi ~ 20.
where;
u particle velocity,
Tn = first natural period of surge or sway motion
Di = the reference diameter of a chord.
In the above definition of combined velocity, current is included. This should be

acceptable as the member does not distinguish between the velocity due to current or
wave motions. The backflow of the wake is different in combined wave and current
fields, (KC dependence) but this has a small influence on the prediction of the largest
force in an extreme wave for single members of diameters typical for jack-ups, see
Section C4.7.2.6.
For inclined members the above definition implies that the procedure to arrive at the
force components is first to determine the particle velocity component normal to the
member axis, then determine the force normal to the member axis and thereafter to
determine the force components in the global directions. This implies that the force
component along the member is neglected.
On the inclusion of the relative velocity there has been some reluctance to directly
accept the extension to the original Morison's equation. Intuitively the extension should
be correct using the same argument as for current forces as the member only
experiences the flow field passing locally. However, the displacements of the members
are quite small and there has been few data to support such an extension as pointed out
in [34]. In [55] test results show that for small amplitude motions the damping may be
overpredicted when the relative velocity is included. However, for a typical jack-up,
with member diameters less than 1m and natural periods around 5.0 seconds, the
sensitivity to member displacement is not large because the parameter U red = uTnlD i =::
20 or more in an extreme sea state, see Figure C4.3.1. In addition, the Christchurch bay
test results show that the relative velocity formulation gives good prediction of the in-
ine loading [44], 'correctly predicting the important hydrodynamic damping at the
resonant frequency'. From this it may be concluded that the relative
velocity formulation is probably applicable for jack-up structures. A limitation is
introduced to avoid any significant overprediction of damping.
The reduced velocity Ured may be computed for a wave height equal to the significant
wave height and using the first natural period normally corresponding to the fixed
condition soil parameters. In practical cases it is suggested to evaluate Ured for a
majority of members close to the sea surface, and to include relative velocity either for
all or no members.
The relative velocity formulation is in effect similar to the inclusion of damping

reaction forces. All predictions of damping are uncertain, and compared with other
damping estimates the relative velocity formulation is judged to be reasonably well
estimated. This additional damping from the relative velocity formulation should be
considered when choosing the structural/proportional damping coefficient. A low
structural damping should be considered when the relative velocity is included.
A procedure to combine the forces on several individual members into one member
with equivalent diameter and drag coefficient to be used with the horizontal water
particle velocities is discussed in Section 4.6.
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1A
-
dd
-
1.2
1.0 _46_
0.8
0.6
OA
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4 Xo/D
Figure C4.3.1 Oscillating drag coefficient vs. motion amplitude to

diameter ratio xJD for given reduced velocities [55]
C4.3.3 Inertia forces
These forces are not dominant for extreme loads of typical jack-up lattice legs. A more
comprehensive model could be applied to include relative accelerations (noting that in
this case the added mass should not be included in the structural model).
In the RP the fonnulation is given as:

~inertia = P eM (1tD /4) Un
2
(4.3.5)
where;
~inertia = nonnal force per unit length of member (in this case the member is
vertical and the force horizontal).
p = density of fluid surrounding the tubular.
D = diameter of the member.
un = water particle acceleration nonnal to the member.
This implicitly defines how to treat inclined members. However, for inclined members
the horizontal force may alternatively be determined by accounting for the inclination
on the added mass part of the inertia force, but not on the Froude-Krylov part of the
force. The horizontal inertia force is hence computed as:
~inertiaH = p1tD /4 [(CM-1)sin2~i + 1] un
2
(4.3.6)
where ~i is the angle between the particle acceleration and the element orientation as
defined in Figure 4.2. It should be noted that the vertical particle acceleration will also
provide a horizontal component on inclined braces. For global force calculations this
will generally be unimportant as the loadings on different braces at different angles will
tend to cancel out.
C4.4. W AVB THEORIES
C4.4.1 General
In general there are two different computational methods with corresponding suitable
wave theories;
Deterministic regular wave analysis, and

Stochastic irregular or random wave analysis.
For the deterministic regular wave analysis all fonnulated wave theories may be chosen
from a mathematical point of view. For shallow waters however, the choice of wave
theory is limited to those properly predicting wave asymmetry and the corresponding
change in wave kinematics.
For the stochastic irregular wave analysis only the linear Airy wave theory, or variations
of Airy theory are suitable. Airy wave theory does not fully describe the wave
kinematics behavior since this wave theory implies symmetric waves, which are not
always applicable for shallow water. This will limit the application of this type of
analysis to deeper and intennediate water depths and is considered further in Section
3.5.1, see Appendix C4.B.
C4.4.2 Regular wave analysis
Currently there are a number of wave theories that are applied in the analysis of jack-up
platforms. In most cases the deterministic computations are performed using Stokes
fifth order [42] or Dean Stream function [40] theories. The Dean Stream function
theory shows the best fit to test results, [40,41], for shallow water waves. The
difference in overall forces from these two wave theories will however be small at large
to intermediate water depths and for low wave steepnesses.
Figure C4.4.1 is included in the PRACTICE in a linear scale to guide the selection of
the appropriate wave theory for deterministic analyses. Only the Dean stream and
Stokes wave theory are recommended here in order to limit the range of possible
choices, reducing the scatter in wave force predictions.
C4.4.3 Irregular wave analysis
For the irregular waves analysis, Airy's wave theory is the only possible choice using
the principle of sum of independent wave components as implied in standard irregular
seas time domain simulation and frequency domain solutions. For both the Dean
Stream and Stokes wave theories there are implicit phase dependencies between wave
components at different frequencies.
To account for changes in wetted surface a modification of the Airy wave theory is
required, introducing the surface elevation as a parameter in the kinematics. A number
of such stretching methods have been proposed in literature. One simple method, the
Wheeler stretching method [37], compares well with test results in model tank
measurements [38]. Even for the Wheeler stretching method there exist different
variations. The chosen definition is that originally suggested in [37], to substitute the
true elevation at which the kinematics are required with one which is at the same
I
proportion of the mean water depth. This can be expressed by:
z-~
z' = 1+~/ d
(4.4.1)
where;
z = The elevation at which the kinematics are required. (Coordinate measured
vertically upward from the mean water surface)
z' = modified coordinate to be used in particle velocity formulation
~ = The instantaneous water level (same axis system as z)
d = the mean, or undisturbed water depth (positive)
This method causes the kinematics at the surface to be evaluated from linear theory
expressions as if they were at the mean water level.
If a frequency domain analysis is to be applied in extreme response predictions, it is

recommended to use linearization with respect to a finite wave height, Hmax defined in
3.5.1, however damping should be linearized using a lower wave height. Stochastic
linearization implies the use of a unit wave height and when combined with the
assumption of Gaussian statistics the extreme response may be underpredicted, see
Figure C4.4.3. For fatigue computations stochastic linearization, [51], is recommended
as fatigue damage is not dominated by the extreme wave heights, however
consideration should be given to local loads arising from the finite wave height.
0.05 "'---""I"---~----""--~!"'""'--"""'----""'!----""--~
The boundaries given are approximate and

depend on the purpose of-the analysis
being perfonned. It is accepted that refraction
0.02 and diffraction analysis will usually will be
based on linear theory.
0.01 ....-----+----+-----+Hb
0.005~---~----+----~~~~~~~-,.~---4_---~--~
SHALLOW WA1ER
B:RE:AKmG LIMIT STOKES 5
Hm ax/d= 0.78
ORS1EAMFUNCTION CD
0.002 ..----I\-17T71Jr---.;-7f.---I---I--::~-iiiiiiiiiiiil
0.001 "'I-----+--#---++--i
0.0002 ~----4---~+---+-~~~~~----+-----~---~r---~
LlliEARJAIRY
OR STREAM FUNCTION 3
0.0001 +--- DEEP

W.ATER
INI'ERMEDIATE DEPTH WAVES WAVES
0.00005 .....- - -.....- -.....r-I;..--....- - -....

0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01
---r----....
0.02 0.05
---....,---t
0.1 0.2
d
gTa s s 2
Notes
1) None of these theories is theoretically correct at the breaking limit. Nomenclature
2) Wave theories intended for limiting height waves should be referenced for
waves higher than O.9Hb when stream function theory may underestimate Hmax/gTass
2
2
= Dimensionless wave steepness
the kinematics. dlgTass = Dimensionless relative depth
3) Stream function theory is satisfactory for wave loading calculations over Hmax = Wave height (crest to trough)
the remaining range of regular waves. However, stream function Hb = Breaking wave height
programs may not produce a solution when applied to near breaking d = Mean water depth
waves or deep water waves. Tass = Wave period
4) The order of stream function theory likely to be satisfactory is circled. Any L = Wave length (distance between
solution obtained should be checked by comparison with the results of a crests)
higher order solution. g = Acceleration due to gravity
5) The error involved in using Airy theory outside its range of applicability is
discussed in the background document.
Figure C4.4.1 : Range of validity of different wave theories [52,58]

Wave length, I
Period T
-Airy's theory - sinusoidal wave folUl
Figure C4.4.2 : Surface elevation, and velocity profiles for

detenninistic regular waves
FDLinear
~------------------~------------~H
DRAG FORCE OVERESTIMATED DRAGFORCE UNDERESTIMATED
Figure C4.4.3 : Linearization w.r.t. wave heights [47]

C4.5. CURRENT
C4.5.1 General
The current specified for a specific site is to be included as specified in section 3.6 of
the PRACTICE. Interpolation between the data points may be required and linear
interpolation is recommended for simplicity.
C4.5.2 Combination with wave particle velocities

It should be emphasized that the wave and current velocities are to be treated together,
as a sum of separate force contributions will significantly underestimate the
hydrodynamic forces.
C4.5.3 Reduction of current by the actuator disc formula

The current velocity will be reduced due to the presence of the structure in the current
flow field. An estimate of the reduction of the steady flow velocity may be found by
[53]:
VcNr = [1 + ~(CDiDi)/4Wrl ~ 0.7 (4.5.1) I
where; Vc = the reduced current velocity to be used in analysis.
Vr = the observed far field current.
COi = the drag coefficient of an element i.
Di = the element diameter of element i.
W = the width of the structure.
Several limitations of the above relation are discussed in [53,56] and a lower limit to
the reduction of the current velocity is suggested to be 0.7.
The above equation contains a sum of COi and diameters Di, but is not explicit with
respect to inclined members. The summation ~CoiDi is similar to the computation of
the equivalent drag coefficient and diameter, CoeDe, in Section 4.6 of the PRACTICE,
where member inclination is accounted for. Since the equation should be considered
for separate groups of elements [53], it suggested to apply the formula for each leg and
use the following format:
Vc = Vr [1 + CoeDJ(4D 1)r l (4.5.2)
where; Vc = the current velocity to be used in the hydrodynamic model, Vc
should not be taken less than 0.7Vf .
Vr = the far field (undisturbed) current.
COe = equivalent drag coefficient, as defined in 4.6.6.
De = equivalent diameter, as defined in 4.6.6.
DI = face width of leg, outside dimensions.
For structures where the hydrodynamic geometry varies significantly with depth, the
blockage factors can be computed for different depths. In view of the reduced drag
above MSL (due to lack of marine growth) it may be appropriate to calculate current
blockage for the stretched part of the current above MSL separately.
C4.5.4 Current stretching

It is suggested to let the profile follow the surface elevation by changing the coordinate
system similarly to that of the Wheeler stretching defined by equation 4.4.1. The
current profile is recommended in Section 3.6.2.
C4.6. LEG HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL
C4.6.1 General
The hydrodynamic modeling of the leg of a jack-up may be carried out by utilizing
either 'detailed' or 'equivalent' techniques. In both cases the geometric orientation of the
elements are accounted for. The hydrodynamic properties are then found as described
below:
Detailed Model'
All relevant members are modeled with their own unique descriptions for the Morison
term values and with correct orientation to determine Vn and un and the corresponding
drag coefficient times diameter CoD =CDjD j and inertia coefficient times sectional area
CMA =Cmi1tD?14, as defined in Section 4.7.
'Equivalent Model'
The hydrodynamic model of a bay is comprised of one, 'equivalent', vertical tubular to
be located at the geometric center of the actual leg. The corresponding (horizontal) Vn
and un are to be applied with equivalent CoD = CDeDe and CMA = CMeAe, given in
4.6.5 and 4.6.6. The model should be varied with elevation, as necessary, to account
for changes in dimensions, marine growth thickness, etc.
C4.6.2 Length of members
Lengths of members are normally to be taken as node-to-node distance of the members,

in order to account for small non-structural items.
C4.6.3 Spudcan
A criteria for considering the spudcan is suggested such that the effect of the wave and
current forces on the spudcan may normally be neglected at deep water or deep
penetrations. However, there may be special cases with e.g. large spudcans in
combination with high currents that should be considered also outside the suggested
criteria.
C4.6.4 Shielding and Solidification
Shielding is normally neglected for computations of the hydrodynamic model as

presented herein. The shielding is dependent on KC- and Re- numbers. Since it is
difficult to quantify shielding, and shielding in waves is less than in constant flow
[45,62], shielding is neglected. The same criteria are used for solidification as for
shielding such that both effects should be considered if advantage is taken due to
shielding in wave and current loads.
According to [56] shielding is recommended to be neglected for SID :::; 4 for an array of
elements, where S is the outer diameter of the array and D is the diameter of individual
elements. This is also considered in [45].
If information on shielding is obtained from experiments, care should be taken to

distinguish between shielding and the effect discussed in C4.5.3. These effects are
different, but could possibly be confused in tests on small models in large tanks.
Solidification is an increase of wave forces due to interference from objects 'side by
side' in the flow field. This is normally not included in the hydrodynamic coefficient
formulation for jack-ups since shielding is also neglected. Jack-up rigs are usually
space frame structures with few parallel elements in close proximity so that this effect
is usually not important.
In [45] solidification effects are quantified for two elements and for a group of
elements. The drag coefficient may increase 100% if two tubulars are placed side by
side, or be reduced for a group of elements, e.g. a conductor array, where shielding is
also present.
The effect is less than 10% in the worst direction and is therefore suggested omitted in
the PRACTICE, when:
A/At < 0.5
where;
As = sum of projected areas for all members in the considered plane
At = the total projected envelope area of the considered plane.
Solidification should be considered if shielding is included.
C4.6.5 Equivalent drag coefficient
In order to comprise the information on drag forces for individual members of a lattice
leg into an equivalent vertical member over the bay length s, a fixed diameter and a
directional dependent drag coefficient is specified. This model accounts for the
geometrical orientation of the individual members. In this model the principle of no
shielding and no blockage is assumed.
The equivalent diameter is recommended such that the inertia coefficient normally will
follow without any further computations. The equivalent drag coefficient, CDe , times
the equivalent diameter, De, is specified. If another reference diameter De is preferred,
the product of CoeDe should in any case be equal to that specified in Section 4.6.5 of the
PRACTICE. The expression for COei may be simplified for horizontal and vertical
members as follows:
Vertical member (e.g. a chord) CDei = CDi (D/De)
CDei = sin a; CDi (Dil/Des)
3
Horizontal member
C4.6.6 Equivalent Inertia coefficient
The equivalent value of the inertia coefficient, CMe, and the equivalent area, Ae, to be
used in Section 4.3.3, representing the CMA chosen as:
C Me = may normally be taken as equal to 2.0 when using Ae
= 1.0 for flat plates (brackets).
Ae = equivalent area of leg per unit height =(L Ai li)/s.
Ai = equivalent area of element =1t D?14.
Di = reference diameter as defined in Section 4.7.
The reference diameters Di and corresponding area of member Ae, are chosen such that
the use of an inertia coefficient C Me = 2.0 or C Me = 1.0 is consistent with the inertia
forces for chords and brackets respectively. A conservatism is present since the inertia
coefficient for rough tubulars is set to 1.8 and there is no reduction of forces for
inclined members. For normal lattice leg designs the conservatism
will not play any significant role as the drag forces are dominant. The inertia force will
also be dominated by chords due to their larger diameter, such that the conservatism is
judged to be insignificant for extreme wave forces.
If, however, a more accurate model is wanted an alternative is given using the
individual member inertia coefficients, as specified in Section 4.7 of the PRACTICE,
and including the effect of inclined members. The C Me coefficient is then determined
by the summation shown in Section 4.6.6 of the PRACTICE. This model is in closer
agreement with the 'detailed model'. It should be stressed that the coefficients must be
defined together with their reference dimensions D i .
As comments to this fonnulation the following may be observed:
for horizontal members with flow along the length axis the inertia coefficient is:
C Mei = 1.0
for a vertical rough tubular the inertia coefficient will be:
=
C Mei 1.8
for other vertical members the inertia coefficient will be:
C Mei = 2.0
for other flat plates (brackets) the inertia coefficient will be:
C Mei = 1.0
C4.7 HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS FOR LEG MEMBERS
C4.7.1 General
The coefficients determined herein are based on tests where the particle velocities and
accelerations are measured simultaneously as the forces, usually in a controlled
environment. This is the logical way to determine the loading coefficients. However,
the important result in engineering is the overall forces predicted by the Morison's
equation over the Jack-up legs. Since some wave theory has to be applied, which does
not perfectly predict the wave particle motions in all cases, additional scaling is
suggested in Section 3.5 of the PRACTICE, see also Appendix C4.B. This is important
to consider when reading this chapter as the stated coefficients may be somewhat larger
than those applied in other recommendations or classification rules.
C4.7.2 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Tubulars
C4.7.2.1 General;
There exists a wealth of data on hydrodynamic coefficients (drag and inertia

coefficients) for tubulars, mainly from model tests. A number of model tests have been
performed in wind tunnels, others in oscillating water environment or in steady water
flow, while (to our knowledge) only a few model tests have been performed in a wave
environment. In addition a few full scale tests have been reported.
In the following section (Section C4.7.2.1-7) an overview is given of the literature that
has been applied for the purpose of recommending values for the hydrodynamic
coefficients of jack-up platforms.
Before choosing the appropriate hydrodynamic coefficients for tubular parts of jack-up
platfonns the following questions have to be answered:
Are the coefficients to be used for a fatigue analysis or an ultimate strength
analysis?
Are the tubular parts smooth or rough, and if they are rough what is the
roughness to be applied?
The parameters to be considered in determining the hydrodynamic coefficients are;
UmT
Keulegan-Carpenter number KC = D
UD
Reynolds number Re = v
k
Relative roughness = D
where;
k = roughness height
D = diameter
Urn = maximum orbital particle velocity
T = wave period
U = flow velocity at the depth of the considered element.
v = kinematic viscosity of water
(v:::: 1.4 X 10-6 m2/sec, t =10°C)
Concerning the first question above, it is important to determine the range of Reynolds
numbers and Keulegan-Carpenter numbers of interest. Both the drag coefficient CD and
the inertia coefficient C M are dependent on the Reynolds number and the Keulegan-
Carpenter number. In the ultimate strength case one is interested in the CD and CM
coefficients in relatively long and steep waves, i.e. wave steepness S = H/A in the range
1110-1115. A typical ultimate strength case may for example be, a tubular with diameter
D = 0.3 m standing in a seastate with average zero-upcrossing period Tz = 10 secs.
(A = 156 m) and significant wave height Hs = 13.0 m. The representative water particle
velocity for this wave will be:
H s 1t
Uw = -- =4.1 mls.
Tz
Assuming a current velocity Uc of about 1.0 mis, the total water particle velocity will
be U = Uw+Uc = 5.1 mls. This results in the following Reynolds number and
Keulegan-Carpenter numbers (close to the water surface):
UD 6 UT
Re = - = 1.1 10 , KC = - z = 170
v D
This means that in the ultimate strength case we are dealing with high KC-numbers and
post-critical Re-numbers. Sarpkaya (see for example [4]) uses a parameter ~ =RelKC
to describe the test environment. In the ultimate strength environment described above,
the value of ~ is approximately 6500.
A typical fatigue case may for example be the same tubular in a seastate with Tz = 6
secs. (A = 56 m) and Hs = 5.6 m. In this case the representative water particle velocity
will be Uw = Hs1TfI'z = 2.9 m1s. In the fatigue case, current is not part of the water
particle velocity, which is to be applied. This results in the following Reynolds number
and Keulegan Carpenter number (close to the water surface):
KC = 58.
This means that post-critical Re-numbers and relatively high KC-numbers are also to be
dealt with in the fatigue case. Sarpkaya's ~ parameter has a value ~ = 10860 for the
described fatigue case.
It may be concluded that, in general, for jack-up tubulars, the following ranges of Re-
numbers and KC-numbers will be of interest:
Re-numbers: Ultimate Strength, roughly from Re == 1.0x106 - 4.5 X 106

Fatigue, roughly from Re == 0.5x106 - 1.0 X 106
KC-numbers: Ultimate Strength, KC> 100
Fatigue, KC == 25 - 60
Since quite a large amount of the literature survey is dealing with papers written by
Sarpkaya, the following range of Sarpkaya's ~-parameter may be regarded to be of
interest: ~ == 6000 - 20000 (depending on the KC-number).
The answer to the second question concerning the roughness of the tubulars will depend
largely on type of paint used and the smoothness of the steel surface, whether the
tubular is new or has been in the water for quite some time (marine growth), or whether
the tubular mainly stays in air, etc.
Smooth cylinders are defined as cylinders having a roughness kID < 0.0001, while
rough cylinders are assumed to have a roughness kID > 0.004 (i.e. highly rusted steel
kID == 0.005-0.01). Marine roughness due to marine growth implies a roughness in the
range kID == 0.01-0.15.
C4.7.2.2 Literature Survey and Recommended Values
In Table C4.7.1 a survey result is presented of relevant literature with respect to inertia
coefficients (C M ) and drag coefficients (CD) for tubulars. Of course, there exists more
relevant literature than that presented in Table C4.7.1, but it should give a reasonably
representati ve overview.
Table C4.7.1 : Survey of Relevant Literature on CM and Co values for Tubulars
Source Geometric Shape Re-Number KC-number Co CM Comments

-K~~i~g~~-----S~~~thCyii~d~;-0:i~oj-i(l-----25~50-----ij~i'-s-------ij---i:8----S~b~Criti~-~i------
Carpenter 0.1 105 >100 1.0-1.2 2.4-2.6 and Critical
1958 [1] Flow. Low
Re-numbers.
Sarpkaya Smooth Cylinder >0.5 106 20-40 0.6-0.7 1.7-1.8 Post-Crit.
1976 [2] >0.7 106 60-100 0.6-0.7 1.7-1.9 Oscillating
Flow.
Rough Cylinders
Sand kID =0.005 >0.5 106 20-40 1.5-1.7 1.2-1.4 Post-Crit.
kID =0.01 1.6-1.8 1.2-1.4 Oscillating
_~?~~~~~~~ __ ~ _=::_ 9:~? ____________________________________________~:? ~_~ _ ~ _______~: ~_-_~ :~____ !'!?_~ _______________ _
Sand kID = 0.005 60-100 1.4-1.6 1.5-1.7 Post-Crit.
kID = 0.01 1.5-1.6 1.4-1.6 Oscillating
Roughened kID = 0.02 1.6-1.7 1.4-1.6 Flow.
Hogben Smooth Cylinder >1.0 106 >25 =0.6 =1.5 Post-Crit.
et al. Flow.
1977 [3]
Rough Cylinders Post-Crit.
Survey kID =0.0002 >1.0 106 >25 0.6-0.7 Flow.
Paper kID =0.002 >0.5 106 >25 =1.0
State of kID =0.01 >0.5 106 >25 =1.0
the Art kID =0.05 >0.1106 >25 =1.25 1977
-S~k~y~- ----S~~~th -Cyii~d~; --;,o."i -i06--------- 2540------O'-6~O'-8 -------i :5---i :7--- -criti~-~ -~ ----------
et al. Super-Crit.
1982 [4] Oscillating
Rough Cylinder >0.1106 25-40 1.5-1.7 1.0-1.2 Flow.
kID =0.01 ~ =4000.
-S~k~y~- ----S~~~th -Cyii~d~; -~."i"i()6" --------25~40 -----0."7~0'-8 ------ -i ~5---i ~~i --- criti~-~i -~ ----------
et al. =0.15 106 60 0.6-0.65 1.5-1.6 Super-Crit.
Rough Cylinder =0.1106 25-40 1.4-1.5 1.4-1.6 Flow.
kID =0.01 =0.15 106 60 1.4-1.5 1.5-1.6 ~ =2500.
-S-~k~y~- ----R~~gh- Cyii~d~~- --oj~oj- icf -----2540 -----i '-4~i.-s -------i :o~-i:3- --- criti~-~i -~ ----------
et al. kID =0.01 Super-Crit.
1985 [6] =0.21 106 50 1.4-1.5 1.2-1.3 Oscillating
Flow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-:::!?-~~-----------
_~~~!~~________ g~<?~~~~_~~31J?~_B:~=~~~~~~_~~:~~~~~~_____~f!____________ ~M ______ ~_<?~~!!~~ _______ _

According to Sarpkaya, available data with current + oscillatory flow substantiate the fact that
drag coefficients obtained from tests at sea in general will be smaller than those obtained under
laboratory conditions.
Sarpkaya Smooth Cylinder 0.2-0.3 106 20-25 0.6-0.7 1.6-1.8 Super-Crit.
Flow.
~ = 11240.
-S~k~y~- ---- S~~~th -Cyii~d~; -;0.-5 -i<l--------25~40- -----0~6~0.-8 -------i :5---i :8--- -P~~t~crit.- ---------
1985 [8], >0.5 106 >50 0.6-0.7 1.6-1.8 Oscillating
1986 [9] Flow.
Survey Rough Cylinder >0.5 106 25-40 1.4-1.8 1.2-1.4

Articles kID = 0.02 >0.5 106 >50 1.4-1.6 1.3-1.5
-N~th ----------
S~~~th -Cyii;;ci~;- -~.-5- io6-------- -- --~ -- ------ 0~4~0.-5 -------------------
S~p~;~crii.-- ------
1982 [10] Steady Flow.
Rough Cylinder
kID =0.02 00 0.9-1.0 Post-Crit.
kID>O.1 00 1.0-1.2 Steady Flow.
Smooth Cylinder 0.15-0.2 106 15-25 0.3-0.6 0.8-1.4 Super-Crit.

Oscillating
Rough Cylinder Flow.
kID = 0.02 0.15-0.2 106 15-25 0.6-1.0 0.4-1.0
kID>O.1 0.15-0.2 106 15-25 1.0-2.0 0.8-2.3
There is very large scatter in the data presented by Nath.

-B~~~~-----S~~~th-Cyii~d~;-O:i5~Oj-i06-----~20-------0~6~oj------i4~-i:5-----S~p~;iP~~t~-------
et al. Crit. Flow,

1985 [11] Regular
Waves.
The authors present results for random waves as well, but it is difficult to draw any conclusion
from these results.
-K~~-~-~~-----S~~~th-Cyii~-ci~~-O~5~-i~o-iOo------20~40------O:5~O.6-------j~6---i~8----P~~t~crit.----------
et al. Oscillating
1987 [12] Rough Cylinder Flow.
kID =0.0083 0.5-1.0 106 20-40 1.1-1.4 1.3-1.7 Large Scatter
=50 1.1-1.2 1.6-2.3 in CM-values.
kID =0.0042 0.5-1.0106 20-40 0.9-1.3 1.3-2.1
=50 0.9-1.1 1.6-2.1
Chaplin Smooth Cylinder =0.2 106 =20 0.6-0.7 1.4-1.5 SuperlPost-
1988 [13] Crit. Oscilla-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~~~~-~<?~:---------
Source Geometric Shape Re-Number KC-number CD CM Comments

i)~~i~~- -------S~~~th -Cyii~d~~-- -;0.-5- i06-- ----- --- -~20- ------0~6~0.7 -------i ~5~-i i ---P~~t~crit.- ---------
et aI. Flow, Reg.
1990 [14] Waves.
Smooth Cylinder >0.5 106 ==18 0.5-0.7

Post-Crit. 1.5-1.7
Flow. Ran-
dom Waves.
The authors conclude that for smooth cylinders and KC>4, drag and inertia coefficients in
periodic waves may be used to represent average CD- and CM - values in random waves.
i~d~~~- ------ S~~~th -Cyii~d~~- --;i-6-i06-------- ----;;,- -- ----- ~.6 ---------------------- P~~t~crit.- ---------
busch Rough Cylinder Steady Flow
et al. kID = 0.02 >1.0106 00 0.9-1.1 (Steady Tow).
1983 [15]
Smooth Cylinder > 1.0 106 >30 0.6-0.7 1.6-1.7 Post-Crit.
Rough Cylinder Oscilla-
kID = 0.02 > 1.0 106 >30 1.4-1.5 1.1-1.3 ting Flow.
(Forced
Motion).
Smooth Cylinder > 1.0 106 20-40 0.6-0.8 1.4-2.0 Post-Crit.

Rough Cylinder Random Flow
kID = 0.02 > 1.0 106 20-40 1.0-1.8 1.0-1.9 (Forced
Motion).
Smooth Cylinder > 1.0 106 60-90 Post-Crit.

0.6-0.8 1.5-1.7
Rough Cylinder Random Flow
kID = 0.02 60-90 1.1-1.4 1.0-1.4 (Forced
Motion).
The random tests show relatively large spread especially for the lower KC-numbers (20-40).
iod~~~ ------ -S~ooth -Cyii~-ci~i--;i .-0- i06-------- -- -;6i) ------O'-65~(i 75----i j~-i ~7----Po~t~crit'- ---------
busch Random Flow
et aI. Rough Cylinder (Forced
_! ~~~ _(! ~L ___ ~?~:g~g_~ ________ ~~:.~ _~_~~ __________ ~~g_______ L! ~_1_:.~ _______!: ~_-_~ :?___ }~~~~i_<?~L _________ _
Theopha- Rough Cylinder Post-Crit.
6
natos kID = 0.005 >0.8 10 0.95-1.05 Steady Flow
et al. kID =0.0095 1.0-1.1 (Steady Tow).
1989 [17] kID =0.025 1.15-1.25 => Sand Rough.
kID =0.049 1.15-1.25

kID = 0.098 1.3-1.4 => Pyramids
kID = 0.067 1.2-1.3 => Mussels

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klopman "Rough" Cylinder Post-Crit.
et al. kID = 0.00012 ==0.5 106 ==15 0.6-0.9 1.3-1.6 Random Waves.
_!~~~_(!~l _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _
/,1~~j!l!Jq~~~ gR _f!'!J!~____________________________________________ ~~y. ~,_ !.f!!': _?QQ~ ______________________________ _
Source Geometric Shape Re-Number KC-number Co CM Comments
--------------------------------------------------6------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heideman Smooth Cylinder >0.2 10 15-30 0.5-1.2 Post-Crit.
et al. >0.2 106 >30 0.6-0.8 1.2-1.9 Random Waves.
1979 [19] Rough cylinder Ocean Test
kID~.03-0.05 >0.210 6
15-30 0.9-1.8 Structure.
>0.2106 >30 0.8-1.3 0.9-1.7
Large spread for lower KC-numbers « 30). Authors state that for large KC-numbers (> 30),
smooth cylinder CD approaches an asymptote CD = 0.68, while rough cylinder CD approaches an
_
_~~~~~C?!~_ ~R _~_ ~:g: !~~~~ _t'~tf?~~~!~ _~_ ~~~~ ~l!~~~?~~l!~: __________________________________________ _
Nath Rough Cylinder Barnacles: Post-Crit.
1988 [20] kID = 0.073 00 0.95 Steady Flow.
kID = 0.104 00 0.98-1.2
Artificial Hard Fouling: Post-Crit.

kID =0.078 00 0.98-1.2 Steady Flow.
Wolfram Rough Cylinder Mussels: Post-Crit.
& Theo- kID =0.075 00 1.22 Steady Flow.
phanatos kID = 0.085 00 1.26
1990
[21] Mixed Hard Fouling:
kID = 0.076 00 1.11
Kelp:
kID = 1.25 00 1.51
kID = 2.5 00 1.69
Sea Anemones:
kID = 0.16 00 1.35
-R~~-hk~- ------S~~~th -Cyii~d~~-- >3.-5- i06----------- -~ --- --- --O'-65~O~ 75----------------P~~t~crit'- ---------
1961 [22] Steady Flow
Wind Tunnel.
-Miii~~---------S~~~th-Cyii~d~;-;3.-6-io6------------;;,--------O.-60~O~65----------------p~~t~crit.----------
1976 [23] Steady Flow

Rough Cylinder Wind Tunnel.
kID = 0.0004 >3.0 106 00 ::::D. 80
Sand kID = 0.0009 0.8-0.9
Roughened kID = 0.0014 0.8-0.9
kID = 0.0021 0.9-1.0
kID = 0.0031 1.0-1.1
kID = 0.0050 1.0-1.1
Pearl kID = 0.015 >0.5 106 00 =1.1 Post-Crit.
Barley kID = 0.023 =1.1 Steady Flow
kID =0.044 1.1-1.2 Wind Tunnel
Dried kID = 0.042 >0.5 106 00 1.1-1.2
Peas kID = 0.063 1.2-1.4
i)~~~-~;; ------
S~~~th -Cyii~-ci~~ ->3.-5 -i06------ ----- -~ -- ----- - ~-.6- --------------------- P~~t~crit'- ---------
et al. Steady Flow
1982 [24] Rough Cylinder Wind Tunnel
kID = 0.0004 >2.0 106 00 ::::D;8
kID = 0.0014 ::::D. 88
kID = 0.0028 ::::D. 92
In addition to the literature review presented in Table C4.7.1, an interesting and useful
overview of existing literature is presented in a survey report prepared by Advanced
Mechanics Engineering Limited for the Health and Safety Executive [25].
The literature review presented in Table C4.7.1 shows that the test results at different
facilities agree reasonably well with respect to the drag coefficients for smooth
cylinders in post-critical flow. The majority of tests show CD values between 0.6 and
0.7, both for the lower KC range for fatigue (25-60) and the higher KC range for
ultimate strength. The suggested CD value for smooth tubular elements (kID < 0.0001)
in post-critical flow is therefore chosen to be CD = 0.65.
For rough cylinders the spread between the individual tests with respect to CD values is
considerably larger. Especially Sarpkaya [2] operates with very high post-critical CD
values for rough cylinders. It should be noted that none of the values obtained by the
other authors referenced in Table C4.7.1 support the Sarpkaya values in the post-critical
region. The differences between individual tests may partly be due to the different
types of post-critical flow (different test conditions) and to the non-uniform definition
of roughness used by the different authors.
One should also bear in mind that the wave particle velocities decrease with increasing
depth below the water surface, which might mean a transition from the post-critical
regime to the super-critical or even critical regime. This will result in a reduction in CD
values for smooth cylinders (although in the lower Re-number part of the critical regime
it may result in an increase in CD values, but here the water particle velocities are so
low that the resulting contribution to the overall drag force will be significantly smaller
than the contributions higher up on the cylinder). For the rough cylinders the critical
regime occurs at lower Re-numbers and there is no reduction in the drag coefficient in
the super-critical regime. For large roughnesses an increase in the drag coefficient has
in fact been reported in this regime [3, 32].
Based on the literature survey presented in Table C4.7.1 and the discussion above, the
drag coefficient for rough cylinders (roughness kID>0.004) is chosen equal to Co = 1.0,
both for the ultimate strength and the fatigue cases.
C4.7.2.3 Marine Growth dependence
Rust and hard marine growth has been found to behave in essentially the same manner
as artificial hard roughness, but a surface with hard marine growth behaves quite
differently from a surface with soft marine growth. Another point of consideration is
that different types of marine growth on a submerged tubular may dominate at different
depths below the sea surface.
The use of anti-fouling coating will at least delay the development of marine growth but
after a few years the anti-fouling coating becomes less effective. Regularly cleaning of
the tubulars is another possible way to limit the development of marine growth. In
Table 4.3, Section 4.7.2 of the PRACTICE, it is assumed that severe marine growth is
not allowed. This is in accordance with the operational profile of mobile jack-up rigs,
with cleaning of legs at intervals preventing severe marine growth.
The main contribution to forces is in the surface region, such that the extension of the
marine growth below the surface zone is not important for the overall forces. The paint
will in addition be somewhat roughened when exposed to the salt water for a longer
period. Above the marine growth region the use of values for a smooth cylinder has
been recommended. This is mainly based on the fact that the marine growth will be
limited to the region below MWL + 2m, limiting the roughness above this region.
In addition measurements also indicate that the wave forces in ocean waves are less
than predicted by use of a constant Co [39, 31], see also Figure C4.7.1
Based on this it is recommended that the value CD for a smooth surface (CD =0.65) is
generally used for the legs above MWL + 2m and the value for a rough surface below
MWL + 2m (CD =1.0), as stated in Table 4.4 of the PRACTICE.
HURRICANE CARLA
Wave No. 06887 - 018
SEPT. 10, 1961
H=39Ft.
T= 13 Sec.
L= 676 Ft.
-----------,~
. ~/'",""...,.
/'
~
I ~ Stokes sth(CD= 0.7)
/
/
I
I
~~I
I
J
I
I • I
! i
I
I I :
taO 200 100
Figure C4.7.1 Comparison between measured and computed forces on a

pile up to free surface [39, 31]
C4.7.2.4 Definition of relevant parameters
The drag coefficient (CD) for tubulars, may be considered as a function of roughness
(kID), Keulegan-Carpenter number (KC) and Reynolds number (Re) as an alternative to
Table 4.3. This explicit dependence is intended to be used in cases where there is more
detailed knowledge, first of all on the roughness and in addition on the flow conditions
around the members at a specific site. A definition of these governing parameters are
included in section C4.7 .2.1.
C4.7.2.5 Dependence on roughness
The roughness may be accounted for explicitly if the roughness is documented to be of

an intermediate value compared with the smooth and rough kID values assumed above.
Recommended values for the roughness, k, may be found from table C4.7.2.
Table C4.7.2 Recommended Roughness Values for Tubulars [45]
Surface k (meters)
Steel, new uncoated 5.0E-5
Steel, painted 5.0E-6
Steel, highly rusted 3.0E-3
Marine growth 5.0E-3 - 5.0E-2
Several authors have presented, in graphical form, the Co dependence on the relative
roughness kID at post-critical Re-numbers. Figure C4.7.2 presents a graph from Miller
[23], showing the variation of CD with varying kID based on several model experiments
at post-critical Re numbers. Figure C4.7.3 and Figure C4.7.4 show similar graphs
presented by respectively Wolfram et al [21] and Pearcey et al [28]. Based on the
available data with respect to the dependence of CD on kid, the expressions presented in
Equation (4.7.1) have been proposed to describe this dependence for the purpose of the
PRACTICE. The drag coefficient COi may then be obtained from Equation (4.7.1):
C DsmOOth =0.65 ; kiD < 0.0001
CDi(kID) = COsmooth * (236 + 034 Log,o (k I D)); 0.0001 < kiD < 0.004
{C
Drough =1.0 ; 0.004 < kiD
(4.7.1)
A graphic representation of Equation (4.7.1) is shown in Figure C4.7.5. With respect to
the inertia coefficients for smooth cylinders, all the references from Table C4.7.1 report
post-critical C M values lower than the asymptote CM =2.0. The C M values lie mainly in
the range 1.6 - 1.7. However the question is whether (in general) some inertia
contribution has been included in the drag forces used for the CD determination. This
would mean that the CD values are slightly overestimated and the CM values slightly
underestimated. At the same time, since both fatigue and ultimate strength imply
Keulegan-Carpenter numbers >25, it is the drag dominated region which is of most
interest and the chosen CM values are not really critical. Based on this argument the
inertia coefficient for smooth cylinders in the post-critical regime is set equal to the
asymptotic value CM =2.0.
The CM values for rough cylinders, are in general reported to be slightly lower than the
CM values for smooth cylinders. Based on the same argument as used for the smooth
cylinders, the inertia coefficient for rough cylinders in the post-critical regime is set
equal to CM = 1.8.
A summary of the recommended values for the hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars
is given in Table C4.7.3.
Table C4.7.3 : Recommended Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Tubulars
Tubular CDi CMi

Smooth (k!D<O.OOOI) 0.65 2.0
Rough (kID>O.004) 1.0 1.8
Intermediate kID Equation 4.7.1 2.0
1.2 ~
~
1.0 SZECHENY
r:::l I
U
1::
0.8 ~~~~
.....0
Q)
-0 .... Range of "In Service"
:.0
~
Q)
0
0.6 l~ Marine Roughness
,.1
U 6 5 5 4 6
10 <Re<6x10 5 x 10 < Re < .I~ 5 x 10 < Re < 6 x 10
~
I-<
0.4 -+1( 6 X 10 6
Q
0.2
6. Achenbach
0 Sand } NMI
0 Simulated Marine Rouglmess
0
10.4 10-3 10 ·2 10. 1
Relative Roughness kiD
Figure C4.7.2 Drag coefficient for rough cylinders at high Reynold's number, [23]
o Present Dam
- - Pearceyelal
OTS Dam
/::,. Achenbach (beads)
2.00 X Achenbach (pyxamids)
• Rodenbuschetal
• Miller (peas)
Miller (barle YJ
Ci 1.75 o Math (sand)
X Math (barnacles)
U <> Math (ert. roughness)
\1 LRfCIT (cubes)
~
(J) 1.50
'..-1
~
() •
~
(J)
0
1.25
o
-0 .... -"'
"
..... " "
0
IID[J
V
o 0
~
U ___ - -x- - ~ - o .... - J) ... -
r:I-
v
x
1.00
~
1-1
_---- 0 0
Q
0.75
0.50
2 3 456789 2 2 3 456789
10- 10-1
Relative Roughness kiD
Figure C4.7.3 Drag coefficient for post critical Reynolds numbers

for rough cylinders, [21]
0.3 ® •.•.•.•.•.•.•............•.• 9-.....

........
S
.@ .•••••••
0.2 ". ' •. (iL 1.4
",®
::)'!KUUHAL NUMlIE,K 1.2
1.2 0.1 (PRESENT TESTS)
1.0 0 1.0
0.8 ,~' . •
f{
0.8
--~--------- ----•••.•••••-
CD CD
0.6 e------------ -- ----'- ------- 0.6
x MAXIMUM VALUJ£ UF l"U::;T· t;tUTlt;AL t;}
l"KJ::::;J:'.NTTJ£::;T::;
0.4 ® HIGEST TEST, REYNOLDS NUMBER 0.4
• MAxrr.ruM VALUE
0.2 • HIGHEST TEST, REYNOLD5 NUMBER

MEAN CURVE
} MILLER (REF1.2) 0.2
0 .:.1
0
10.6 10') 10.4 10·:$ 10 10.1
Figure C4.7.4 Effect of roughness on drag coefficient and vortex shedding

frequency for post-critical Reynolds numbers, [28]
CD smooth = 0.65 ; 1110000 >kID

CD smooth * (236 + 0.34 Log 10 (k/D» ;11250 >kID>1I10000
CD rough =1.0 kID> 11250
0.2
". /MARlNEGROWTH
1.0 / ............ ~:'. '>:'" k
C Di (kID) .\'.¥
" ". ~"
0.8
0.6
\,JH:[:~~S;:~...... ....
0.4
kID
1.0F.-O:i 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-0l
Figure C4.7.5 Recommended values for the drag coefficient as function of

relative roughness
Keulegan-Carpenter number dependence.
In post-critical conditions, for KC-numbers lower than say 30-40, there seems to be
some dependence of the drag coefficient on the KC-number, at least for rough
cylinders. For smooth cylinders this KC-dependence is more uncertain. The
Christchurch Bay Tower (CBT) results for a clean cylinder reported by Bishop [26], for
example, show this dependence for smooth cylinders, and so do the results reported
from the Ocean Test Structure (OTS) [19]. Wolfram and Theophanatos [21], and the
SSPA results reported by Rodenbusch and Gutierrez [15], do not show this dependence
for smooth cylinders.
For rough cylinders in post-critical conditions, the KC-dependence of the drag

coefficient for KC-numbers lower than say 30-40, seems to be a more generally
observed trend, as in [15, 19,27] amongst others.
It must be emphasized that for decreasing KC-numbers «30) the (post-critical)

conditions will gradually be more inertia dominated and less drag dominated, implying
an increasing uncertainty in the reported CD- values.
Figure C4.7.6 shows CD as a function of the KC-number for cylinders in waves from
[52]. Figures C4.7.7 and C4.7.8 show in a similar way CD as a function of KC-number
for respectively a clean cylinder and a rough barnacle covered cylinder of the Ocean
Test Structure COTS [19]) as presented in [25].
Based on the discussion above and the results reported in the literature the explicit KC-
dependence presented in Equation (4.7.2) may be included in the computations in
addition to the roughness dependence:
1.45 ; KC<lO
CDi(KC,kJD) = CDi(kJD) * 2/ (KC - 5)°·2 ; 10 < KC<37 (4.7.2)
{ 1.0 ; 37<KC
A graphic representation of Equation (4.7.2) is given in Figure C4.7.9.
Equation (4.7.2) should also be used for smooth cylinders, in spite of the uncertainty
with respect to the KC-dependence. However, for low KC- values the choice of CD-
value is less critical due to the transition to inertia dominated conditions. Furthermore
using Equation (4.7.2) for the entire roughness range (from smooth to rough) results in
a more uniform and easier to use way to handle the KC-dependence.
An inertia coefficient CM =2.0 for smooth cylinders and CM =1.8 for rough cylinders is
suggested for use if KC-dependence is used for the drag coefficients at low KC-
numbers.
--1/20
·---1/1~O • ---,.
-'... ....
.•• -1/1~GO··-...... ""'''',
'"" '" ' ....
" ........
1.0 Ifl '... " ........-... --- ------- --- .. _-
... -"'- ... _-
-------- .. _----
0.5
OUGRJ.M BAScO ON lOGARITHIC IHTER-
POLA nON BfT'WfEH k/D.1I20 #.NO
k/l)-v1ooao
o
o 10 20 30 40
KC
Figure C4.7.6 Drag coefficient dependence on KC number, [52]
Q 3.0 ,..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,

C,)
;
E-o
C,)
o / ' NUMeeR OF H~LF WAVE C'(CI..!;S
~ 2.0 3SS_+ CJ
1.0
.-0-+--'-6-=6---------- Co-- (l.68
0.0 i-w_ _J...-_ _.L.-_ _..I....-_ _.I.-_ _-'--_ _. . I . . - _ - J
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
KC
Figure C4.7.7 Drag coefficient dependence on KC-number for clean

cylinders of the Ocean Test Structures, [19,25]
:::) 3.0 I
u
~ I NUMSER OF HALF WAve CYCI..ES
~ 745
{J
~
U
"~'EiHOO I MEAN
1271
o 2.0
~ • ~~7
.457
IN
r 181
tOJ
-0- '- r I
1.0 ~16"----------CO - 1.0 -
\ METHOD II MEAN
0.0 '--_ _I--._ ___lL~_--.Jl'__ _ ___lLI..._.._ ___I.L'___ _ _ _ tl_..__ ___i
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
KC
Figure C4.7.8 Drag coefficient dependence on KC-number for barnacle covered

cylinders of the Ocean Test Structure, [19, 25J
rJ 1 . 6 i + - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - . . L . - ' - - - - - t - ............. Kd.01

~ ••••• Kd .001
~ 1.4 .... ..... Kd .0001
~ .............. 00.
"
u 1.2 "
'------. --------
o
~ 1.0 .
'. '" -----~
'.
. " ... . ..
'
• • ... ... oj. •• I
O.g-
_-
...
--- --- ---
0.6
0.4 +-...,........,.....-..,....-..---r--.----,.--..---,...,........-.--..--.....-.,-...,.--,--..,....--,--r
o 10 20 30 40
KC
Figure C4.7.9 Recommended drag coefficient dependence on KC for

cylinders in waves, at high Reynolds numbers
Reynold's number dependence
As previously discussed the drag coefficient is dependent on the Re-number and this
has been reported by several authors [3, 32] (Figures C4.7.11 and C4.7.12) and is
reflected in some guidance on load computations, e.g. [29,33] (Figure C4.7.1O).
However, the use of test results reducing Co in the critical region is not relevant for
practical purposes as the roughness kID<1I100000 implied in the curve for smooth
cylinders is not applicable for jack-up structures. The change in the Reynolds
dependence with respect to roughness is quite large and it is therefore not possible to
recommend one single curve for this dependence. The recommended set of curves
shown in Figure C4.7.13 are mainly based on a functional fit to the test results
presented in [32] and in addition the drag coefficient in the critical regime is set to
minimum of CD = 0.45. Test results have indicated lower CD values, but only in the
ideal conditions of test facilities. A recommended set of curves are given in Figure
C4.7.13, complying with the roughness dependence of Figure C4.7.5 at large Reynolds
numbers. Using the curve for roughness kID = 0.01 there is no reduction below CD =
1.0 for Reynolds numbers above 105, which supports the use of a constant CD in the
PRACTICE.
.. .. ..
CD
.- ---....,_. __
. .-
I~ ~ \
I"'V . . .~
"\. \\
1.0
\. .'\\ L \ ;.:--
~.'a"
"- W
}\
_\\
Y, 1.1'l~·-
L V-;:~I~_ ...
0.5
.\ t\/ l/ 7
-_.
~
\. I
/SMOOIIJ-.--- -
-
o 4 ,0 7
10 105 10 Re 10
Figure C4.7.10 Suggested Reynolds dependence in existing guidance, [33]
CD
, -.,
I'
i' Ii
1.2 i -,... iT
\"'\.\
- -I"-
i .
1.0 ,- - .
r'I"--H-
,
·1 ~~ ~ /1-" \ ~1 /' r-- ~
~'
0.,8
. ~I!J V~ !\\ X~~ V
--~t
- =-
0.,6
, k.fOalD
JI,'J ~ h4' ..."
Uf
,
0..4 - f - - ,-
0.2
rl.
:fS..OOTI<
,
'.
111,/0 -01
J i 111111, ___ .
6
10. Reynolds Numbe% (Re)
Figure C4.7.11 Reynolds dependence of drag coefficient in test results, [3]

,
0.4 +----TJ~_f.&:II-+_.,...---~--------_t-+__t_--_+--_t
0.2 +----+--.f-~_+_--__I_--_.,;.__+-4--l----l----I
4
2.10 4 6 8 10.5 Re 4
2 4 6 8 10° 2
Drag coefficient Co of rough circular cylinders in steady incident
flow for ditf'erent surface roughn~ss values kiD (k =average height
of surface roughness, D ~ cylinder diameter,' Rn = U-P / v, u_=
incident flow velocity.) ll) kiD = 110 . 10-5 ; 0, kiD ..:.. 450' 10-:5;
D, kID = 900· 1O-~;-# Page & Warsap (1929), (Achenbach,
1971).
Figure C4.7.12 Reynolds dependence of drag coefficient, [32]
CD ............. Kd.Ol
1.2
10
~ ..:. := :: ::- -- ,
~
. ,
"" ..... ';~~

"
.. ,
'.
....
'I.'
,
I ) ' " .'

" .... e • ,
--
• • • • • III . . . . . . ..
••••• Kd.OOl
,. ..... Kd,OOOl
... " . Kd.OOOOl
0.8 : \_.' I
: ." I I
~. . I I - .:: .: . : --..;---
0.6 I 0' - ...
J'" .., ~
0.4
-" '- .-
0.2
0.04--------,.------,.-------+
1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 Re 1.0E+07
Figure C4.7.13 Recommended values for Reynolds dependence for different

values of relative roughness, KC>40
C4.7.3 Marine Growth Thickness
In addition to the effect on the roughness the effective diameter should be increased to
account for marine growth. Here it is recommended to increase the radius by 12.5 mm
(i.e. diameter increased by 25mm) over the full water depth for tubulars.
C4.7.4 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Brackets

These are treated as flat plates implying that a CDi = 2.0 and C Mi = 1.0 is to be applied
(considering the area associated with CM as that of the circumscribed circle). For
convenience the PRACTICE proposes that brackets are included as horizontal members
in the hydrodynamic model to assure proper directional dependence of forces.
Shielding may be considered according to Figure 4.3 of the PRACTICE.
C4.7.5 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Chords
C4.7.5.1 Split tube chords

In considering the test results for split tube chord data the following aspects are
considered:
The tests are almost always performed with a smooth cylinder section.
Most of the tests are performed in stable current or wind conditions.
The first aspect is the most important, also indicated by the test results evaluation of the
tubulars presented in Section C4.7.2. The drag coefficient for smooth tubulars is about
COsmooth = 0.65, while for rough cylinder this increases to CDrough = 1.0.
The second aspect on stable flow conditions should not affect the results very much as
the KC values are very high in extreme load evaluations. However, the test result in
[63] showed higher values in waves than in stable current. This has not yet been fully
explained, but comparisons made in [25] indicates that test results in waves from flume
experiments overpredict the drag forces. A number of test results [62] have been
considered, from wind tunnel tests and towing in water, when evaluating hydrodynamic
coefficients for split tube chords.
The drag coefficient is first estimated for the directions 0° and 90° as defined in Figure
C4.7.14. The drag coefficients for 0° are dominated by the tubular part and no
particular effect of the rack on the drag coefficient is seen from the tests. That is, for
typical dimensions of the tubular diameter and rackplate thickness t, D/t » 1.0, tests
show values of about Co ::= 0.65. This indicates that the drag coefficients chosen for the
tubular are also valid for the split tube chord for the 0° direction. In order to be
consistent with the roughness dependence of the drag coefficient for tubulars, the drag
coefficient in the marine growth region is increased due to roughness to C Drough = 1.0
for8=0°.
For the 90° direction the drag coefficient should be similar to that of a flat plate for
large WlDi ratios, CDplate = 2.0. However, test results seem to indicate that the CD
values for this direction referring to the mean rack width W, are, on average, about 1.8,
see Figure C4.7.15. The suggested drag coefficient in the PRACTICE is therefore set to
be 1.8 for small WlDi ratios, increasing to 2.0 for large WlDi ratios. The interpolation
between these two numbers is based on engineering judgment.
The drag coefficient for the wave flow normal to the rack, related to the rack width W,
is recommended as:
1.8 W/Dj <1.2

1.4+ W 13D j 1.2<W ID j <1.8 (4.7.3)
{ 2.0 1.8 < WID j < 2.0
For the interpolation between the directions 0° and 90° a number of formulations are
available, but since there were a number of test results available, a best fit of a new
formulation was decided.
The following interpolation formula were found to fit the data best, see Appendix C4.C,
and at the same time be flexible with respect to the drag coefficient for rough and
smooth surfaces at 0°:
where~
Coo = is the drag coefficient for the chord at 6 = 0° and is to be taken as that
of a tubular with appropriate roughness, see Section C4.7.2 i.e. Coo =
0.65 above MWL + 2.0m and Coo = 1.0, below MWL+2.0m. Possible
dependence on KC and Re numbers as for a tubular.
CD! = The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack (6 = 90°), related to
the projected diameter (the rack width W).
Explicit dependence on KC may be taken according to Figure C4.7.9,

but is normally not relevant for extreme loading conditions.
Dependence on kID or Re may normally be neglected.
The above formulation was derived based on the assumption that the chord behaves like
a tubular up to a direction where the rack enters the flow field, and from there and up to
90° the chord acts as a flat plate.
In addition to the above formulation two other formulations were tested as shown in
Figure C4.7.16. Equation 4.7.4 gave an excellent fit with the observed drag coefficients
for a smooth tubular and is therefore recommended to be used for split tube chords.
Interpolation formula similar to those used in [29] and [46] are compared in Figure
C4.7.17 with Equation 4.7.4, for a regular wave analysis. There is some difference in
the direction close to 90°, but the number of test results behind the PRACTICE
formulation is believed to justify the change.
I+----w---..
1
Figure C4.7.14 Definition of directions and dimensions for a split tube chord
o 3.04-------~------~--------------~--------r
u
~
~ 2.5
u
D_-------
C D1 FROM PRACTICE
o
~
c
I---~----
Ir
a
I
I
1.5
rt
1.0
t
4-_,........,--.---r-....,...---.,.........,--r-...,--..--..--r-...,----..,.....,--~.....-...._:__
I
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20
wm
Figure C4.7.15 Drag coefficient at 90° related to the rack width W

Q
U 2j
~
~ 20
8 ..-
., ~ A •
~
..... IS
,
"
."
,,' 4
,. '"
" '"
... ",'
/
"
./ '"
10
"
-~ ../.
"
-' "/a
I--...::....;-....--·--~- "
0.5
0.0 +-_____.,.._____......._____ ~
o 30 60 90
ANGlE e
Figure C4.7.16 Alternative interpolation formulations fit to data
~20 -.------------------------------------_~-~ ..-.... PRACTICE

, ..... SHELL
,/ " .. •...•.. DNV
'"
I"~ ,/
".."...-
'"
"/'"
",/
-'-'-'-' .-.-~.-.-.-.-.-
-'.-'
"..--
--
/
LO
" ".
,..,.,'
",.-
...,.,. ~/
••~.: :;;;0'
.-:;.
s
-'~
n.s •
o ;----------~.r-------~.r-----------,
o 30 60 90
ANGLE e
Figure C4.7.17 Comparison with some current practices for regular wave analysis [29], [46].
WID =1.24 and the scaling regular/irregular =0.7, valid below MWL + 2.0m
For the inertia coefficient the theory [32] indicates CM = 2.0 for a smooth tubular
related to the projected diameter and CM = 1.0 for an isolated flat plate. However, when
the plate is considered in conjunction with the split tube sections eM = 2.0 is
appropriate for the combined section. For a rough tubular as indicated in Table 4.4 of
the PRACTICE, the inertia coefficient should be about 1.8 in the marine growth region.
However, since the inertia forces will not contribute much to the extreme forces on the
legs, the inertia coefficient was set to 2.0 related to the width of the chord measured
over the tubular, i.e. at 0°. This is a simple solution and will be conservative in the
direction of the tubular for a rough surface and unconservative in the direction of the
rack and on average correct. This formulation will also be consistent with the
simplified modeling of the leg section where the reference diameter Di is the dimension
D and using CMe = 2.0.
For large rack to diameter ratios WID, it may however be considered appropriate to
modify Creduce) the inertia coefficient such that it accounts more correctly for the
combination of the contributions from the flat plate and tubular components.
C4.7.5.2 Triangular chords
For triangular chords (Figure C7.4.18) little test data are available. Some currently
applied formulae for drag coefficients of more basic sections were therefore used in
addition to the test results to improve the background for the actual chosen values. Drag
coefficients related to two typical shapes are given in [45], as shown in Figure C4.7.19,
for a triangular box section and two plates mounted normally on each other. A
triangular chord is a combination of these cross sections. The numbers at different
directions are compared in Table C4.7.4. The drag coefficients were determined by
vectorial summation of drag forces in direction 1 and 2 according to Figure C4.7.19.
To relate the drag coefficient to a fixed dimension Di = D the back plate width is
chosen. A fixed dimension and directional dependent drag coefficient is convenient for
modeling purposes. The drag coefficient related to this fixed diameter may be
computed as:
C Di = CDpr(8) * D pr(8) I Di
where;
CDpr(8) = the drag coefficient referenced to the projected diameter.
1.70 8 =0°
1.95 8=90°
= 1.40 8 = 105°
1.65 8 = 180°-8 0
2.00 8 = 180°
D pr(8) = the projected diameter of the chord determined as:
reOS(S) 0< 8 < 8 0
D pr(8) = W sin(8) + D 121cos(8)1 8 0 < 8 < 180 - 8 0 C7.9)
nlcos(8)1 180 - 8 0 < 8 < 180
80 = the angle where half the backplate is hidden behind the rackplate,
determined as 8 0 = tan- 1(D/2W).
Table C4.7.4 Comparison of drag coefficients for simple sections

and chord CQru: evaluated from tests.
e -L 1451 /::../451 PRACTICE
CDpr: 0 1.7 1.3 1.70

45 2.5 1.8 1.825
90 2.2 1.95
135 1.5 1.3 1.50
180 2.0 1.8 2.00
(WID = 1.1)
As a basis for the suggested drag coefficients the results available from TEES [67] and
DHL [61,62] were considered together with the recommendations in [46]. The drag
coefficients recommended in the PRACTICE are compared with the TEES test results
in Figure C4.7.20.
The inertia coefficient CMj = 2.0 may be applied for all directions, related to the
equivalent volume of 1tD j 2/4 per unit length, where D j = D, the backplate dimension.
This assumes that the outline cross sectional area is approximately 1tD/14. If the rack
width is not of similar size to the backplate dimension, a more detailed consideration of
the inertia coefficient should be made if the loadings on the leg are not drag dominated
i.e. if the results are sensitive to the choice of inertia coefficient.
Explicit dependence on KC may be taken according to Figure C4.7.9, but is normally

not relevant for extreme loading conditions. Dependence on kID or Re may normally
be neglected.
W-----+l.\
:' :~
Figure C4.7 .18 Definition of dimensions and angles for a triangular chord
C4.7.6 Other shapes
For other shapes, or groups of elements, see e.g. [45].

Table Cl Shape coefficient for irregular cross sections.
Profile It (deg.) C S1 CS2
0 2.0 0
.t:~::- 45
90
135
180
1.2
-1.6
-1.1
0.9
2.2
-2.4
I' ]]6 II -1.7 0
t pdZ
·t:U>~
0 1.8 0
80 -1.3 0
.. t. 0.876
Figure C4.7.19 Drag coefficients for basic sections in uniform flow [45]
5 3.0-l-------I-------lL..----....I-----.
C) • TJ::!iT~ULT
~ PRACTICE
,o.~
1.5
c
1.0 ".
0.5
O.O-lo----,r----,.r----,-----r-
.----"1---1
o 30 60 90 120 150 180
ANGLE e
Figure C4.7.20.a : Marathon LeTourneau 116C
is 3.0
0
~ 2.5
•
..-....
TEST RESULT
PRACTICE
......
0
.~
tz::
t:1
0
2.0
0
0
~
1.5
1.0
0.5
o 30 60 90 120 150 180

ANGLE e
Figure C4.7.20.b : Marathon LeTourneau Gorilla
Figure C4.7.20 Comparison between TEES test results and the PRACTICE
C4.8 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
For the most critical individual leg members the possibility of local vortex induced
vibrations should be evaluated. This check will normally be covered at the design
stage. However, if the site conditions of wind or current and/or wave height exceed
those used for design such a check may be required. This is because vortex induced
vibrations may lead to very high local stresses and a major contribution to fatigue
loading.
Vortex induced resonance will not normally be occur if:

S < 0.2 for tubulars
< 0.145 for flat plates
where;
S = [(fi Di)!Vn], the Strouhal number
Vn = flow velocity normal to the member
n I = diameter of member
fi = fundamental vibration frequencies of member (in Hz).
Further information and bounds for S above which vortex shedding will not occur may
be found in [45] and [59].
A = cross sectional area of member.

Ae = equivalent area of leg per unit hei:¥ht = (1: Ai Ii )/s.
Ai = equivalent area of element = 1t Di /4.
As = sum of projected areas for all members in the considered plane.
At = total projected envelope area of the considered plane.
Co = drag coefficient.
Coo = The drag coefficient for chord at direction S = 0°.
COl = The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack, S = 90°.
COe = equivalent drag coefficient.
C Oei = equivalent drag coefficient of member i
= C Oi (D/De) (vertical member)
3
= sin <lj CDi (Dil/Des).
COi = drag coefficient of an individual member, related to D i.
COpr(S) = drag coefficient to the projected diameter.
CDrough = drag coefficient for a rough member.
COsrnooth = drag coefficient for a smooth member.
Ch = height coefficient for wind.
CMe = equi valent inertia coefficient.
CMei = equivalent inertia coefficient of member i
= 1.0, horizontal member with flow along the length axis
= 1.8, vertical rough tubular with flow normal to the length axis
= 2.0, other vertical members with flow normal to the length axis
= 1.0, flat plates (brackets).
CMi = inertia coefficient of a member, related to D i.
d = the mean, undisturbed water depth (positive).
D = member diameter.
De = equivalent diameter of leg bay.
Di = reference dimension of individual leg members.
DJ = face width of leg, outside dimensions.
Dpi 8) = projected diameter of the chord.
fi = fundamental vibration frequencies of the member.
Hs = significant wave height.
k = roughness height.
kID = relative roughness.
KC = Keulegan-Carpenter number.
Ii = length of member 'i' node to node.
N = constant in wind velocity power law.
tn = velocity of the considered member, normal to the member axis and in the
Re = Reynolds number.
s = length of one bay, or part of bay considered.
S = Strouhal's number.
S = average wave steepness.
S = outer diameter of an array of tubulars.
T = wave period.
Tn = first natural period of sway motion.
Tz = zero-upcrossing period.
u = particle velocity.
Un = liquid particle velocity normal to the member.
un = liquid particle acceleration normal to the member.
ux, Ux = horizontal water particle velocity and acceleration.
U = flow velocity at the depth of the considered element.
Uc = particle velocity by current.
Urn = maximum orbital particle velocity.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR SECTION C4 (Continued)
Ured = reduced particle velocity for regular waves, Ured = uTnlD.

Uw particle velocity by waves.
Vn = total flow velocity nonnal to the member.
Ve = the reduced current velocity to be used in analysis.
Ve = the current velocity to be used in the hydrodynamic model, Ve should not be
taken less than O.7Vf.
Ven = current velocity nonnal to member used in the hydrodynamic model.
Vf = far field (undisturbed) current.
W dimension from backplate to pitch point of triangular chord or dimension from
root of one rack to tip of other rack of split -tubular chord.
W the width of the structure.
Xo = motion amplitude used in consideration of the applicability of the relative
velocity fonnulation.
Z = coordinate measured vertically upward from the mean water surface.
z' = modified coordinate to be used in particle velocity fonnulation.
Z = elevation measured from the mean water surface.
a. = indicator for relative velocity, 0 or 1.

<Xi = angle defining flow direction relative to member.
P = RelKC parameter to describe the test environment.
Pi = angle defining the member inclination.
~draa 0 = drag force per unit length.
~inertia = inertia force per unit length.
~inertiaH = horizontal inertia force per unit length.
A = wave length.
v = kinematic viscosity.
8 = angle in degrees for waves relative to the chord orientation.
8 0 = angle where half the backplate is hidden behind the rackplate.
P = mass density of water or air.
~ the instantaneous water surface elevation (same axis system as z)
~o = the wave crest (same axis system as z).
1 Keulegan, G.H., Carpenter, L.H., 'Forces on Cylinders and Plates in an Oscillating Fluid',
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Volume 60, No.5, May 1958.
2 Sarpkaya, T., 'In-Line and Transverse Forces on Smooth and Sand-Roughened Cylinders in
Oscillatory Flow at High Reynolds Numbers', Naval Postgraduate School, Report NPS-69
SL 76062, 1976.
3 Hogben, N., Miller, B.L., Searle, J.W., Ward, G., Estimation of Fluid Loading on Offshore
Structures', Proc. Institution Civil Engineers, Part 2, 1977.
4 Sarpkaya, T., 'Wave Forces on Inclined Smooth and Rough Circular Cylinders', Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper OTC 4227,1982.
5 Sarpkaya, T., Bakmis, c., Storm, M.A., 'Hydrodynamic Forces from Combined Wave and
Current Flow on Smooth and Rough Circular Cylinders at High Reynolds Numbers',
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 4830, 1984.
6 Sarpkaya, T., Storm, M.A., 'In-Line Force on a Cylinder Translating in Oscillatory Flow',
Applied Ocean Research, Volume 7, No.4, 1985.
7 Sarpkaya, T., 'Force on a Circular Cylinder in Viscous Oscillatory Flow at Low Keulegan-
Carpenter Numbers', Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 165, 1986.
8 Sarpkaya, T., 'Past Progress and Outstanding Problems in Time-Dependent Flows about
Ocean Structures', Proc. of Separated Flow around Marine Structures, The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1985.
9 Sarpkaya, T., 'On Fluid Loading of Offshore Structures - After Ten Years of Basic and
Applied Research', Offshore Operations Symposium, 9th ETCE, New Orleans, 1986.
10 Nath, J.H., 'Heavily Roughened Horizontal Cylinders in Waves', Proceedings of BOSS,

1982.
11 Bearman, P.W., Chaplin, J.R., Graham, J.M.R., Kostense, J.K., Hall, P.P., Klopman, G.,
The Loading on a Cylinder in Post-Critical Flow Beneath Periodic and Random Waves',
Proceedings of BOSS, 1985.
12 Kasahara, Y., Koterayama, W., Shimazaki, K., 'Wave Forces Acting on Rough Circular
Cylinders at High Reynolds Numbers', Offshore Technology Conf., Paper OTC 5372,1987.
13 Chaplin, J.R., 'Loading on a Cylinder in Uniform Oscillatory Flow: Part I - Planar

Oscillatory Flow', Applied Ocean Research, Vol.lO, No.3, 1988.
14 Davies, M.J.S., Graham, J.M.R., Bearman, P.W., 'In-Line Forces on Fixed Cylinders in
Regular and Random Waves', Society for Underwater Technology, Volume 26:
Environmental Forces on Offshore Structures and Their Prediction, 1990.
15 Rodenbusch, G., Gutierrez, c.A., 'Forces on Cylinders in Two-Dimensional Flows', Report

BRC13-83, Shell Development Co., 1983.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION C4 (Continued)
16 Rodenbusch, G., Kallstrom, c., 'Forces on a Large Cylinder in Random Two-Dimensional

Flows', Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 5096, 1986.
17 Theophanatos, A., Wolfram, J., 'Hydrodynamic Loadings on Macro-Roughened Cylinders

of Various Aspect Ratios', Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Volume
111, No.3, 1989.
18 Klopman, G., Kostense, J.K., 'The Loading on a Vertical Cylinder in Random Waves at
High Reynolds Numbers', Water Wave Kinematics, pp. 679-699,1990.
19 Heideman, J.C., Olsen, O.A., Johansson, P.I., 'Local Wave Force Coefficients', Civil
Engineering in the Oceans IV, ASCE, 1979.
20 Nath, J., 'Biofouling and Morison Equation Coefficients', Proceedings 7th. International
Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1988.
21 Wolfram, J., Theophanatos, A., 'Marine Roughness and Fluid Loading', Society for
Underwater Technology, Volume 26: Environmental Forces on Offshore Structures and
Their Prediction, 1990.
22 Roshko, A., 'Experiments on the Flow Past a Circular Cylinder at Very High Reynolds
Number', Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 10, Part 3,1961.
23 Miller, B.L., The Hydrodynamic Drag of Roughened Circular Cylinders', Transactions

RINA,1976.
24 Pearcey, H.H., Cash, RF., Salter, 1.J., 'Flow Past Circular Cylinders: Simulation of FUll-
Scale Flows at Model Scale', NMI Report R131, 1982.
25 'Roughness and Vortex Shedding Effects for Cylinders in Flume and Real Sea Waves',
Report for the Health and Safety Executive by Advanced Mechanics Engineering Limited,
1991.
26 Bishop, J.R., 'An Analysis of Peak Values of Wave Forces and Particle Kinematics from
the Second Christchurch Bay Tower', NMI Report R180, 1985.
27 Bishop, J.R., 'Wave Force Experiments at the Christchurch Bay Tower with Simulated
Hard Marine Fouling', Report No. OTI 89 541, HMSO, 1989.
28 Pearcey, H.H., Matten, RB. and Singh, S., 'Fluid Forces for Cylinders in Oscillatory Flow
Waves and Currents when Drag and Inertia Effects Are Present Together', BMT Report to
the Health and Safety Executive OT-0-86-011, 1986.
29 Det Norske Veritas Rules for the Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations.
30 J.R Morison, M.P O'Brien, J.W. Johnson, S.A. Schaaf, The Forces Exerted by Surface
Waves on Piles', J. of Petro Techn., American Inst. of Mining Engrs., Vol. 189, 1950, p149-
154.
31 S.K. Chakrabarti, 'Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures', Springer Verlag, Berlin,

Hedelberg, 1987.
32 O.M. Faltinsen, 'Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures', Cambridge University Press,
Trumpington Street, Cambridge, 1990.
33 BSI Code of Practice No.3, Chapter 5, Part 2, 'Wind Loads', September 1972
34 J.H. Vugts, 'A Review of Hydrodynamic Loads on Offshore Structures and Their
Fonnulation', BOSS'79, Imperial College, London, England, August 1979
35 E.J. Laya, J.J. Connor and S.Shyam Sunder, 'Hydrodynamic Forces on Flexible Offshore
Structures', Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 110, No.3, 1984.
36 S.R Winterstein, E.M. Bitner-Gregersen and K. Ronold, 'Statistical and Physical Models of
Nonlinear Random Waves', OMAE, Volume IT, Safety and Reliability, Stavanger, 1991,
pp.23-31.
37 J.D. Wheeler, 'Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves', OTC, paper
no. 1006, Dallas, Texas, 1969.
38 J.E. Skjelbreia, O. Berek, Z.K. Bolen, O.T. Oudmestad, J.C. Heideman, R.D. Ohmart, N.
Spidsoe and A. Torum, 'Wave Kinematics in Irregular Waves', OMAE, Stavanger, 1991.
39 RO. Bea and N.W. Lai, 'Hydrodynamic Loadings on Offshore Platforms', OTC paper no
3064, May, 1978,pp. 155-168.
40 RO. Dean and P.M. Aagaard, 'Wave Forces: Data Analysis and Engineering Calculations',
Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1970, 105-119.
41 J.R Chaplin and T.P Flintham, 'Breaking Wave Forces on Tubulars', 3rd International Jack-
up Conference, City University, London, September 1991.
42 L. Skjelbreia and J.A. Hendricksen, 'Fifth-order Gravity Wave Theory', Proceedings of

Seventh Conference on Coastal Engineering, 1961, pp. 184-196.
43 OJ. Andersen, E. F~rland and S. Haver, Design Basis, Environmental Conditions,

Statfjord, Statoil Report no. F&U-ST 88007, Stavanger, April 25 1988.
44 RC.T. Rainey, 'Christchruch Bay Tower Compliant Cylinder Project, Final Summary
Report and Conclusions', OTH-90-139, WS Atkins Engineering Sciences, Surrey, January,
1991.
45 DNV Classification note 30.5, 'Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads', July
1990.
46 'Practice for the Site Specific Assessment of Jack-up Units', By Marine Technology
Division, SIPM, EDP-5, The Hague, May 1989,
47 WAJAC, Veritas Sesam Systems Report no. 82-6108, H~vik, Dec. 1984.
48 N. Pharr Smith, D.B. Lorenz, C.A. Wendenburg and J.S. Laird, 'A Study of Drag
Coefficients for Truss Legs on Self-Elevating Mobile Offshore Drilling Units', SNAME
Tansactions, Vol. 91, 1983, pp. 257-273.
49 N. Pharr Smith and C.A. Wendenburg, 'A study of Drag Coefficients', The Jack-Up Drilling
Platfonn, Ed. L. Boswell, City University, London, 1989.
50 Yoshiharu, Ideguchi, 'Legs Drag Coefficients of Enhanced 30DIC Jack-Up Rig', TSU
Research Laboratories Technical Research Center, Nippon Kokan K.K. Report No. 822117,
June 1982
51 Borgman, L.E., 'Random Hydrodynamic Forces on Objects', Annals of Mathematical

Statistics, Vol. 38., 1967, pp. 37-51.
52 Atkins Engineering Services, 'Fluid Loading on Fixed Offshore Structures', om 90 322,

1990.
53 Taylor, P., 'Current Blockage - Reduced Forces on Steel Platforms in Regular and Irregular
Waves with a Mean Current', Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6519, Houston, 1991.
54 Heideman J.e. and Schaudt K.J., 'Recommended Equations for Short-term Statistics of
Wave Heights and Crest Heights', 1 April 1987
55 Moe, G. and Verley, R.L.P, 'Hydrodynamic Damping of Offshore Structures in Waves and
Currents', The Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 3798, Houston, 1980.
56 American Petroleum Institute, proposal for an update of the API-RP2A, 'Hydrodynamic

Force Guidelines for U.S. Waters', received 6. February 1992.
57 The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 'Regulation for structural design of loadbearing

structures intended for exploitation of petroleum resources', 1988.
58 Health and Safety Executive, 'Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and
certification', London, 1990.
59 N.D.P. Barltrop, A.J. Adams, Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures', Third Edition,
Butterworth Heinemann, 1991.
60 MacCamy R.S., Fuchs R.A., 'Wave Forces on Piles: A Diffraction Theory", U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Tech. Memo No 69, Washington DC, 1954.
Other project reports related and technical notes:
61 G.H.G. Lagers, 'Morison Coefficients of Jack-Up Legs', MSC report 1005, Schiedam, The
Netherlands, February 1990.
62 G.H.G. Lagers, 'Collected Morison Coefficients of Jack-Up Leg Elements', MSC report
1715, Schiedam, The Netherlands, June 1991.
63 S.Th. Schurmans et. aI., DHL, Wave Forces on Jack-Up Legs', Delft Hydraulics
measurement report 8603-1505, Delft, 1990.
64 A. ~ken, 'Review ofDHL test data', Veritec report no. 91-3372, H!2Svik, 1991.
65 ~seth R.M., Arnesen Y., 'Check of data reduction of DHL data', DNVC report No 92-
1054, H!2Svik, August 1992.
Other project reports related and technical notes (continued):
66 D. Karunakaren, 'Scaling of Hydrodynamic Loads According to Computational Models',

Technical memo no. 710762, SINTEF, Trondheim, July, 1991.
67 N.P. Smith, TEES Test Data, Extract, December 6, 1991.

APPENDIX C4.A : EXAMPLE OF EOillVALENT MODEL COMPUTATIONS
Pipe 0 70x4 (typ)
1178.8 (typ)
Pipe Ji' 25x2

I~ 2345
.1
Figure C4.A.1 Model of a bay for test purposes
Table C4.A.1 Computations of eguivalent model for heading 0° to be used in

site assessment for z < MWL + 2m, chord WID = 1.13.
Uj ~i cos ... *) CDi Di Ii CDi*Di*ltcos ...
1 (30) 90. 1.0 1.0 .65 5.0 3.25

Chords: 2 (30) 90. 1.0 1.0 .65 5.0 3.25
3 (90) 90. 1.0 2.124 .65 5.0 6.90
4 -30 26.7 0.25 1.0 .30 11.2 0.84

5 -30 -26.7 0.25 1.0 .30 11.2 0.84
Inclined 6 30 26.7 0.25 1.0 .30 11.2 0.84
braces 7 30 -26.7 0.25 1.0 .30 11.2 0.84
8 90 26.7 1.0 1.0 .30 11.2 3.36
9 90 -26.7 1.0 1.0 .30 11.2 3.36
span 10 -30 O. 0.125 1.0 .10 5.0 0.06

breakers 11 30 O. 0.125 1.0 .10 5.0 0.06
12 90 O. 1.0 1.0 .10 5.0 0.50
LCDi*Di*li*cos ... = 24.10
s =5.0m
C De *De = LCDjDjl j /s =4.82
De = ~(LDj21j / s)
C De = 4.82/1.58
=158}
= 3.05 equivalent model
C Me =2.0
*) Geometric factor,
see Section 4.6.6 [sin2~i + COS2~i sin2Uj]3f2
the PRACTICE
Table C4.A.2 Com12utations of eguivalent model for heading 0° to be com12ared
with model test results, chord WID = 1.13, model scale = 1:4.264
i Uj f3i cos ... *) CDi Di Ii Coi*Di*li*cos ...
1 (30) 90 1.0 0.65 .152 1.178 0.1164

Chords: 2 (30) 90 1.0 0.65 .152 1.178 0.1164
3 (90) 90 1.0 2.124 .152 1.178 0.3803
4 -30 26.7 0.25 0.65 .07 2.628 0.02899

5 -30 -26.7 0.25 0.65 .07 2.628 0.02899
Inclined 6 30 26.7 0.25 0.65 .07 2.628 0.02899
braces 7 30 -26.7 0.25 0.65 .07 2.628 0.02899
8 90 26.7 1.0 0.65 .07 2.628 0.11957
9 90 -26.7 1.0 0.65 .07 2.628 0.11957
span 10 -30 o. 0.125 0.65 .025 1.173 0.00238

breakers 11 30 o. 0.125 0.65 .025 1.173 0.00238
12 90 o. 1.0 0.65 .025 1.173 0.01906
LCoi*Di*li*cos ... = 0.992
s = 1.178
C De *De = 0.842 C De *D e =359
De
C De
2
= LD j 1j Is
= .842/0370
= 0370}
= 2.277 equiv. model
D,
C De
= 158 }
C Me = 2.0 (model scale) C Me = 2.0 (full scale)
Table C4.A.3 Com12utations of eguivalent model for heading 30° to be com12ared

with model test results, chord WID = 1.13, model scale = 1:4.264
1 Uj f3i cos ... *) CDi Di Ii Coi*Di*li*cos ...
1 (60) 90 1.0 1.663 .152 1.178 0.2978

Chords: 2 (60) 90 1.0 1.663 .152 1.178 0.2978
3 (30) 90 1.0 0.65 .152 1.178 0.1164
4 0 26.7 0.091 0.65 .07 2.628 0.01088

5 0 -26.7 0.091 0.65 .07 2.628 0.01088
Inclined 6 60 26.7 0.716 0.65 .07 2.628 0.08561
braces 7 60 -26.7 0.716 0.65 .07 2.628 0.08561
8 30 26.7 0.254 0.65 .07 2.628 0.03037
9 30 -26.7 0.254 0.65 .07 2.628 0.03037
span 10 60 o. 0.650 0.65 .025 1.173 0.01239

breakers 11 60 o. 0.650 0.65 .025 1.173 0.01239
12 30 o. 0.125 0.65 .025 1.173 0.00238
LCDi*Di*li*cos ... = 0.9929
s = 1.178
C De *D e =0.843 C De *D e =359
De
C De
= iLD21. Is
= .843) 0.370
= 0370}
D,
C De
= 158 }
Pipe 054"x4"
38 (typ)
800.8 (typ:
1895.3
Figure C4.A.2 Square bay with triangular chords
Table C4.A.4 Sguare ba:\:: with triangular chords 2 Eguivalent model to be used in
site assessment z < MWL + 2m.
<Xi J3i cos ... *) COi Di Ii Coi*Di*li*cos ...
1 45 90 1.0 1.65 .71 3.4 3.983

Chords: 2 45 90 1.0 1.65 .71 3.4 3.983
3 135 90 1.0 1.79 .71 3.4 4.321
4 135 90 1.0 1.79 .71 3.4 4.321
5 0 40.2 0.2689 1.0 .32 10.6 0.912

Inclined 6 90 40.2 1.0 1.0 .32 10.6 3.392
braces 7 90 40.2 1.0 1.0 .32 10.6 3.392
8 0 40.2 0.2689 1.0 .32 10.6 0.912
Side 9 0 o. 0.091 1.0 .32 11.2 0.0

Horiz 10 90 o. 1.0 1.0 .32 11.2 3.584
11 90 o. 1.0 1.0 .32 11.2 3.584
12 0 o. 0.091 1.0 .32 11.2 0.0
span 13 45 o. 0.354 1.0 .23 11.4 2.622

breakers 14 45 o. 0.354 1.0 .23 11.4 2.622
brackets 15 90. o. 1.0 2.0 .98 0.98 1.921

~Coi*Di*li*cos ... =39.550
s = 3.4
C De *De = 11.63
De = ~(~Di\ / s) = 230} equivalent model
C De = 11.63/ 230 = 5.06
C Me =2.0
Table C4.A.5 Sguare bay with triangular chords) Eguivalent model to be used in
comparison with test results) model scale 1:4.256.
<Xi f3i cos ... *) eOi Di Ii COi*Di*li*cos ...
1 45 90 1.0 1.65 .167 0.8008 0.2207

Chords: 2 45 90 1.0 1.65 .167 0.8008 0.2207
3 135 90 1.0 1.79 .167 0.8008 0.2989
4 135 90 1.0 1.79 .167 0.8008 0.2989
5 0 40.2 0.2689 0.65 .076 2.481 0.0330

Inclined 6 90 40.2 1.0 0.65 .076 2.481 0.1226
braces 7 90 40.2 1.0 0.65 .076 2.481 0.1226
8 0 40.2 0.2689 0.65 .076 2.481 0.0330
Side 9 0 o. 0.091 0.65 .076 2.628 0.0

Horiz. 10 90 o. 1.0 0.65 .076 2.628 0.1298
11 90 o. 1.0 0.65 .076 2.628 0.1298
12 0 o. 0.091 0.65 .076 2.628 0.0
span 13 45 o. 0.354 0.65 .054 2.680 0.0333

breakers 14 45 o. 0.354 0.65 .054 2.680 0.0333
brackets 15 90. o. 1.0 2.0 .231 0.231 0.1070

SCDi*Di*VCOS ... = 1.7836
s = 0.8008
C De *D e =2.227 C De *D e = 9.48
De
C De
= YLD 2
1.1 /s
= .227/0.542
= 0542}
= 4.1 09 equi v. model
De
C De
= 2307}
APPENDIX C4.B: COMPARISON CASFS TO ASSESS IMPLICATIONS OF PRACTICE
FORMULATION
Computations are perfonned on a 'simplified model' with no mass. The irregular and regular
wave results are computed according to the PRACTICE, Section 3 and 4. These computations
are made to asses the implications of changes made concerning drag coefficients and wave
kinematics fonnulations compared with previous practices.
The significant wave height is chosen as judged realistic for the two water depths investigated:
Water depth 30m:

significant wave height Hsrp = 10m
Water depth 90m:

significant wave height Hsrp= 14m
The period range specification is taken from PRACTICE, Section 3.5:
~(11.8Hs) < T < ~(19.5Hs)

3.5~(Hs) < Tz < 3.6.J(H s )
The current and current profile is often site dependent. The current is here set be constant over
the water depth, extrapolated to sea surface.
The example design for the computations is defined by:
Three legs, split tube chords,

Diameter chord (tubular) Dc = O.7m,
Rack width W = O.8m,
Diameter of braces Db = O.3m,
length of braces per m. height lb = 13.44m,
leg spacing xleg = 50m
leg diameter Dr = 10m
Particulars for two existing practices and the PRACTICE
Practice I: PRACTICE:
Irregular waves:
Co d 1 cos CD d cos
Tubular 1.0 *0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 2.419 1.0 *0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 2.419
Chord 1 2.114 *0.7 *1.0 *1.0 = 1.479 2.057 *0.7 *1.0 * 1.0= 1.440
Chord 2,3 1.279 *0.7 *2.0 *1.0 = 1.790 1.056 *0.7 *1.0 *2.0 = 1.478
CoJ)e 5.688 z < 1.5m 5.338
z> 1.5m 4.491
kinematics according to
Delta stretching Wheeler stretching
Regular waves:
Stokes' fifth Stokes' fifth (regular)
Tubular 0.7 *0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 1.693

Chord 1 1.486 *0.7 *1.0 *1.0 = 1.040
Chord 2,3 0.896 *0.7 *2.0 *1.0 = 1.254
CoeDe = 3.989
No shielding assumed No shielding for waves

Reduction of current by
a factor
1/[1 + CoeDef(4Dl)] = 0.88
Practice II:
Regular waves:
Stokes' fifth
Tubular 0.64 *0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 1.548

Chord 1 1.307 *0.7 *1.0 *1.0 = 0.915
Chord 2,3 0.973 *0.7 *2.0 *1.0 = 1.362
CDeDe = 3.825
Irregular waves:
Airy with constant stretching
= 3.825 * 1.3 = 4.973

Table C4.B.l Comparison including wave height scaling,
Water depth =30 m, Hm2 =10 m.
Case Environment Current Base Shear Overturning

HIT Moment
HlTz
m and sec mlsec :MN MNm
Regular 0.0 5.58 143
waves 18.6/14.0
Practice I 1.0 8.03 197
H =Hmax = 1.86 Hsro

Regular 0.0 5.42 139
waves 18.6/14.0
Practice IT 1.0 7.70 189
H =Hmax =1. 86 Hsro

Irregular 0.0 3.18 108
waves 10.0/11.0
Practice IT 1.0 6.89 145
Hs =Hsrp
Regular 0.0 4.90 115
waves PRACTICE 16.5/14.0
0.88 6.96 157
H =!Liet =0.86 Hmax
Irregular 0.0 5.95 122
Waves PRACTICE 11.84/11.0
Hs =[1+.5exp(-d125)] 0.88 7.88 154

*HgJL
Table C4.B.2 Comparison including wave height scaling,
Water depth =90 m, Hsm =14.0 M.
Case Environment Current Base Shear Overturning

Hff Moment
HJTz
m and sec mlsec MN MNm
Regular 18.6/16.5 0.0 9.82 668
waves
Practice I 26.0/16.5 0.5 12.30 819
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsro

Regular 18.6/16.5 0.0 9.41 641
waves
Practice II 26.0/16.5 0.5 11.79 785
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsro

Irregular 14.0/13.0 0.0 11.22 747
waves
Practice II 14.0/13.0 0.5 13.11 859
Hs = Hsro
Regular 23.14/16.5 0.0 8.90 578
waves PRACTICE
23.14/16.5 0.44 11.20 709
H = lLIet = 0.86 Hmax
Irregular 14.34/13.0 0.0 9.12 573
Waves PRACTICE
Hs = [1+.5exp(-d125)] 14.34/13.0 0.44 10.80 671

*Hsro
Comments to the results
The results for both the 30m and 90m water depth cases in Tables C4.B.l and C4.B.2 show
improved agreement between regular and irregular wave force calculations for the PRACTICE
methodology as compared to Practice ll.
The main differences between Practice II and the PRACTICE are that:
the PRACTICE uses a reduced wave height for regular wave analysis instead of a reduced
drag coefficient.
the PRACTICE includes a shallow water wave height correction to be applied to the
significant wave height used in irregular wave analysis.
The shallow water wave height correction term is described and justified in C3.5.1.1. The effect
of wave asymmetry in shallow water in Practice II is included only by a conservative kinematics
model above the mean water level for an irregular wave analysis. Other practices give no
consideration to shallow water effects in irregular wave analysis.
The agreement between regular and irregular wave forces is better at the 90m water depth case
than for the 30m water depth case. However, the correction term for shallow water cases is
justified as compared to the Practice II results.
APPENDIX C4.C : COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS FOR CHORDS
Split tube chords compared in the following

rack ratio WID
F&G 1.08
NKK 1.10
MIMC 1.13
MSC 1.18
MIMC 1.24
Q 2.0 ~---------------..,
(.)
~
~ 15
o(.)
o
~ l.()
0.5
0.0 ..f.-----"""I""-----..------i
{) 30 60 90
ANGLE e
Figure C4.C.l : Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, ratio

=
WID 1.08, [48]
:l
(.) 2.5 --_.. -
Eo<
~
(.)
§
U
2.0
~
u
I.S
1.0
"
0";
0.0
0 30 60 90
ANGLE e
Figure C4.C.2 : Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, ratio

=
WID 1.10, [50]
2.5
c
U
f-4
~u 2.0
~0 c
U
0
~1.5 c
~
1.0
c
c
c
0.5
O.O+------r-------.....-------~
o 30 60 90
ANGLEe
Figure C4.C.3 : Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, ratio

=
WID 1.13, [49]
2.5
c
U
....Z
~ 20
~0 c
U
0 1.5
~ c
1.0
c
0.5
0.0 1-------"T"""-----......
o 30 60
~----___4
90
ANGLEe
Figure C4.C.4 : Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, rack

=
WID 1.18, [511
2.5-r---------------------,
c
[J
1.0
c c
0.5
O.O+--------r-------~-----~
o 30 60 90
ANGLE e
Figure C4.C.5 : Comparison of PRACTICE formulation with model tests, rack

Will = 1.24, [49]
C5 COMMENTARY TO CALCULATION METHODS - STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
C5.1 INTRODUCTION
The application of the procedures and techniques given in Section 5 is consistent with
the guidance given in the other sections of the Recommended Practice (pRACTICE).
Furthermore, it is assumed that the user of the PRACTICE is familiar with the general
philosophy and design/assessment approach specifically applicable to jack-ups. To
provide additional guidance to the analyst less familiar with these procedures and to
also ensure consistency of application by all users, this commentary has been prepared.
In general, the structural modeling for the assessment of a jack-up must achieve the
following objectives for both the static and (where applicable) dynamic responses:
• Realistic global response (i.e. displacement, base shear, overturning moments, etc.)
for the unit under the applicable environmental and functional loads.
• Represent the correct linear and non-linear characteristics of the leg, leg-hull
connection and the leg-foundation interaction.
• Sufficient detail to allow for detailed assessment of the adequacy of the leg
structure, structural/mechanical components of the jacking system and the
foundation.
C5.2 GENERAL
Prior to beginning the actual modeling of the jack-up unit the analyst should ensure that
all data necessary to perform the assessment is available. Refer first to the
accompanying "Guideline for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-up Units" and
Section 3 of the PRACTICE - Assessment Input Data for guidance on the data needed
and for the rationale as to why they are important to the assessment procedure.
Once these data are collected it would also benefit the analyst to review Section 4 -
Calculation Methods - Hydrodynamics and Wind Forces and Section 6 - Calculation
Methods - Geotechnical Engineering of the PRACTICE. This will serve not only as
confirmatory check to assure the completeness of the data being collected for the
analysis, but will also allow the analyst to evaluate the level of analysis techniques to be
used in light of the computer software available. It is important that the analyst
anticipate the complete scope of the assessment in terms of the level of quasi-static and
dynamic analyses which may be required. This will allow the analyst to optimize the
structural modeling and reduce the duplication of effort.
In the remaining sections of this Section of the Commentary the analyst is guided
through the overall structural modeling of a jack-up for the following:
(1) Quasi-static analysis procedures
(2) Assessment criteria procedures
For guidance on dynamic analysis techniques, refer to Section 7 of the PRACTICE.

This Commentary has been focused on providing a general discussion of key points and
their impact/importance on the final assessment results. Thus it is important that if
additional detail is required, the analyst refer to appropriate technical references or
contact the jack-up designer for further guidance.
C5.3 GLOBAL RESPONSE
C5.3.1 In the analysis of jack-ups the global response is developed by appropriate

combination/modeling of both the first order (linear) response and the second order
(non-linear) response. The first order response of a jack-up can be derived from models
of varying degrees of complexity as discussed in Section 5.6 of the PRACTICE. Please
refer to Figure C5.1 for the resulting response/reactions which are derived from a first
order analysis.
C5.3.2 The effects noted in Section 5.4 - 5.5 of the PRACTICE (e.g. leg inclination, P-M
should be determined and combined with the forces generated by the first order
analysis. These effects have been shown to be significant (in varying degrees of
importance) in the assessment of jack-ups based on the specific circumstances of the
jack-up and the specific site conditions being considered. The actual
treatment/derivation of the response is highly dependent on the modeling complexity
chosen and the computer software analysis packages available to the analyst. The
guidance given in Sections 5.4 - 5.5 of the PRACTICE allows for this needed flexibility
in addressing the full spectrum of approaches by allowing for implicit incorporation of
these second order effects by using the appropriate non-linear modeling capabilities of
the computer software or by explicit addition of a conservative incorporation of these
effects by approximate/simplified hand calculations. Please refer to Figure C5.2 for
further representation of the effects of P-~ and leg inclination and Figure C5.3 as to the
applicable contribution of these second order effects that are required to be incorporated
with the first order response.
It should be noted that the PRACTICE recommends that P-~ effects are included
throughout the assessment. It also recommends that the effects of initial leg inclination
are included only at the end of the analysis in the structural strength checks (by means
of an additional applied moment).
The derivation of the alternative geometric stiffness approach to P-~ of Section 5.5.4.3
of the PRACTICE is given in Appendix C5.A.
C5.3.3 Although the "Recommended Practice" gives guidance as to simplified calculations that
can be performed for P-~ and leg inclination, no specific guidance has been given for
the additional moment caused by hull sagging.
When a unit is installed on location the legs will normally engage the seabed with the
hull supported by its own buoyancy in a hogged condition. Subsequently, with the hull
slightly clear of the water, preload ballast will be taken on board thus preloading the
legs to achieve their final penetration. This will normally lead to an extreme hull
sagging condition. Finally the preload ballast is dumped and the hull elevated to the
required airgap for the location. In this condition the hull will be sagging under self
weight and variable loads.
As explained in Section 5.7 of the PRACTICE, the leg shear and bending moments
caused by hull sagging are very dependent on leg guide clearances, the design of the
jacking system, operational parameters and the modeling used in the analysis. A
simplified approach for a conservative quantitative assessment is to assume that 25 to
50 percent of the theoretical hull sagging moment at the lower guide is seen in practice.
This may be accounted for in a global model by reducing the distributed hull mass by
75 to 50 percent and applying the residual mass as point masses on the hull adjacent to
the connections to the legs. This procedure is not applicable when hull stresses are
required. A more thorough method is to apply self equilibrating pairs of
forces/moments across the spring connections between hull and legs:
An alternative approach is to allow a relaxation of the horizontal seabed restraint by

means of prescribed displacements.
C5.4 DISCUSSION OF THE LEG-HULL CONNECTION
In addition to the importance of understanding the global response of the jack-up, it is

important that the analyst has a full appreciation of the leg-hull interface. A
representative leg-hull connection is shown in Figure C5.4. The basic function of the
leg-hull connection is to provide for a transition of forces between the leg and hull via:
1) the upper and lower guide which transfer bending moments by a set of
horizontal forces
and
2) a jacking system and/or fixation system which transfers vertical load and
bending moment via a set of vertical forces.
Section 5.6.6 gives guidance on the detailed modeling requirements for each of the
following components:
• upper and lower guides

• jacking pinions
• fixed jacking system
• floating jacking system
• fixation system
• shock pads
• jackcase and associated bracing
The various combinations of the above components to create the leg-hull connections
on typical jack-ups now in service are given in Figure C5.5. Close attention to the leg-
hull connection should be given by the analysts to ensure a thorough understanding of
the jacking system so that proper modeling is realized. The number of key variables
which must be properly incorporated are:
• bending, shear and torsional stiffness of the leg between the upper and lower
guide
• axial, bending, shear and torsional stiffness of the jackcase stiffness of the upper
and lower guides
• amount of clearance/tolerance of the legs within the guides (see Figure C5.6)
• amount of backlash in the jacking system (see Figure C5.7)
• type of leg guide arrangement (see Figure C5.8)
• rack/pinion arrangement (opposed versus unopposed pinions) (see Figure C5.9)
When accounting for the effects of clearances (e.g. between guides and leg) in simpler
models there are several approaches available:
• For estimates of extreme behavior, use a 'secant stiffness' approach, so t~at the
springs used provide a realistic displacement for the load/deflection levels
expected. Thus the equivalent stiffness will include any slack behavior:
p
°typicd
~
o 1
Equivalent
• An alternative to the above, which is less sensitive to the initial estimate of load
and deflection, is to use a pair of self equilibrating applied forces to represent
the slack so that the spring is initially under a compressive load Po, where Po =
koo:
p
k
Note: When using the methods above any spring with true tensile loading must be
manually released.
• For natural frequency calculations, providing that the gaps do not open and
close, the use of the stiffness for closed gaps is appropriate.
C5.5 DETERMINATION OF PROPERTIES FOR EQUIVALENT MODEIllNG OF LEG
AND LEG-HUlL CONNECTION
C5.5.1 Equivalent leg stiffness

The determination of stiffnesses for the equivalent leg model referred to in Section
5.6.4b) of the PRACTICE may be accomplished the following means:
• Hand calculations using the formulae presented in Figure 5.1 (after DNV, with
corrections). Provided that there are no significant offsets between the brace
work points these will be reasonably accurate for cases A (sideways K bracing),
C (X bracing) and D (Z bracing); case B (normal K bracing) should be used
with caution as the values of equivalent shear area and second moment of area
are dependent on the number of bays being considered. If the leg scantlings
change in different leg sections this can be accounted for by calculating the
properties for each leg section and creating the equivalent leg model
accordingly.
• The application of unit load cases to a detailed leg model in accordance with
Section 5.6.4 a) of the PRACTICE. The following load cases should be
considered, applied about the major and minor axes of the leg:
- Axial load. This is used to determine the axial area, A, of the equivalent
beam according to standard theory:
FL FL
~=-=>A=-
AE E~
where;
~ = axial deflection of cantilever at point of load application
F = applied axial end load
L = length of cantilever (from rigid support to point of load
application)
E = Young's modulus
- Pure moment applied either as a moment or a couple. This is used to derive
the second moment of area (I) according to standard beam theory:
ML2 ML2 ML ML
0=--=>1=-- and 8=-=>1=-
2EI 2£0 EI E8
where;
0 = lateral end deflection of cantilever at point of load application
M = applied end moment
8 = end slope of cantilever at point of load application
It should be noted that the value of I resulting from the two equations may
differ somewhat.
- Pure shear, P, applied at the end of the leg which may be used to derive I
according to standard beam theory:
PL2 PL2
8=-=>1=-
2EI 2E8
Using either this value of I, or a value obtained from the pure moment case, the
effective shear area, As, can then be determined from:
PL3 PL 7.8PLI
8 = 3EI + AsG => As = 3EI8 _ PL3
where;
G =shear modulus =El2.6 for poissons ratio of 0.3
C5.5.2 Equivalent leg-hull connection stiffness
The determination of stiffnesses for the equivalent leg-hull connection model referred
to in Section 5.6.6 t) of the PRACTICE may be accomplished the following means:
• Hand calculations using the formulae presented in Section 7.3.5.3 of the

PRACTICE.
• The application of unit load cases to a detailed leg model in combination with a
detailed leg-hull connection model in accordance with Sections 5.6.4 a) and
5.6.6 a)-e) of the PRACTICE. Unit load cases are again applied, as described in
C5.5.1. In this instance the differences between the results from the detailed leg
model alone (see C5.5.1) and the detailed leg plus leg-hull connection model
allow the effective stiffness of the connection to be determined:
Axial load. This is used to determine the vertical leg-hull connection

stiffness, Kvh from the axial end displacements of the detailed leg model, D.,
and the axial end displacements of the combined leg and leg-hull connection
model, D.c, under the action of the same loading, F:
Kvh = F/(D..c-D.)
Pure moment applied either as a moment or a couple. This is used to derive

the rotational connection stiffness, Krh from either the end slopes, 8 and 8c ,
or the end deflections, Sand Sc, of the two models under the action of the
same end moment, M:
Krh = M/(8c-8) or Krh = MU(Sc-S)
Pure shear which may be used to determine the horizontal leg-hull

connection stiffness, Khh, in a similar manner, accounting for the rotational
stiffness already derived. Normally the horizontal leg-hull connection
stiffness may be assumed infinite.
If the model contains nonlinearities due to the inclusion of gap elements care should be
taken to ensure that suitable levels of 'unit' loading are applied such that the derived
stiffness is applicable to the analysis to be undertaken.
C5.6 LOAD APPUCATION
Section 5.7 of the PRACTICE indicates appropriate methods for applying the various
loads to the analytical model(s). The importance of capturing the distributed nature of
the self weight and distributed loadings is emphasized.
C5.7 EVALUATION OF FORCES
This Commentary is directly applicable for the structural modeling of jack-ups for
either quasi-static or dynamic analysis. Key points which impact the final conclusions
drawn from the assessments of jack-ups have been emphasized to complement the
guidance given in the PRACTICE. A successful analysis will conclude with a set of
forces which can then be used in the final evaluation of the adequacy of the unit the
specific site, as contained in Section 8.0 - Assessment Criteria. The specific areas of
review include:
• Structural Strength Check (see Section 8.1 of the PRACTICE).

• Overturning Stability (see Section 8.2 of the PRACTICE).
• Foundation Assessment (see Section 8.3 of the PRACTICE):
Bearing Capacity
Sliding Resistance.
• Other Responses of Interest (see Sections 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6 of the PRACTICE
respectively):
Horizontal Deflection
Holding Capacity of the Jacking System
Hull Strength (if required).
Care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate load factor is reflected in the
determination of the load set applied during the analysis. This allows for direct use of
the resulting loads in the assessment formulation.
PORT
BOW
Wmd induced
shear---M-
1
STARBOARD
Fnvironmcntal--L---I~ ..I
approach direction iL~:"'.-+--'----l
Vertical
Reaction
HORIZONTALREACnONS - Wmd load component

- Wave load component
VERTICAL REACTIONS - Wind load component

- Wave load component
- SclfWeight component
Figure CS.l : Responses/reactions from first order analyses
DECK SWAY
tp
NON VERTICAL LEGS
rL
OT - Horizontal offset
01 - Hull leg clearances
O2 - Hed of platfOlDl
,
0;-
tp
Figure CS.2 : p-~ and leg inclination effects
20d Order axial torce from

Wmd induced shear ---+/
1 P·Dclta effect (Delta P)
2nd Order moment from

p. Delta effect (Delta M)
t---=,"----r-- Lower guide position
Leg length from lower

guide to base (llg)
Wave induced shear
Lcver(Lcv)
--'"--.......--..1...--'WmdForce Reaction
Base ofleg + Wave Force Reaction
+ Deck Sagging
lOTALBASE SHEAR REAC1ION
Wmd Force Reaction

+ Wave Force Reaction
+ DcltaP
TOTAL BASE AXIAL FORCE
Figure C5.3 : Contribution of Second Order Effects to First Order Responses
Jacking system inducing:
e Fixation System
e FIXed or Floating Jacking
System with Shock Pads
e Jacking Pinions (Opposed or
Unopposed)
eJackcasc
" Lower guide
Fv
Figure C5.4 : Representative leg-hull coimection

l LEG· HULL CONNECTION I

I
I I
l Fix alien system
I
I I No fixation system
I
I I
I I pm..,. I I I
I I Unopposed pinons j
• I I
Opposed pinacs
•
U""!'POsed Opposed pmions
I I I I
I I 1 I I I
Floating
J 1
Fixed Flolling Fixed Floati:lg Fixed Fixed Flolling
jecki%Jg jaclcing jacking jacking jacking jacking jacking jacking
system system system system system system system system
F & G L780 II
L'l8OV
NoIliIl3
~tSicaa(IoISC
(MSC C1'I6)
CJ46)
/lIodec3CD:
~o!~~CJ!Il)
-..
.1l6C
_G.... ElrIoaO (WSCCJ3l) .supcr:m examplesd
i.~kG;"'1 v..t1lota -GaiI& Wlilsinthi.
VioIG......
MSCCJ/i2 Guslo category
Figure C5.5 : Leg-hull connection component combinations
Guide tolcrancc.
Figure C5.6 : Guide clearances
backlas
Effect of backlash
NB: Additional backlash may arise due to slack in gear train, clearances between
floating elevating system and shockpads etc. I
Figure C5.7 : Jacking system backlash
Guiding types Tangential Radial Combined

~~--------------------~v~----------------------J/
Guiding
Figure C5.8 : Types of leg guide arrangement
Rack types single sided opposed racks
Figure C5.9 : Unopposed and opposed pinion.arrangements

A = axial area of equivalent beam.

As = effective shear area of equivalent beam.
E = Young's modulus.
F = applied axial end load.
G = shear modulus =El2.6 for poissons ratio of 0.3.
I = second moment of area of equivalent beam.
Khb horizontal leg-hull connection stiffness.
Krb = rotational leg-hull connection stiffness.
Kvh = vertical leg-hull connection stiffness.
L = length of cantilever (from rigid support to point of load application).
M
p
= applied end moment.
= applied end shear.
0 = lateral end deflection of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg model
alone.
oe = lateral end deflection of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg plus
leg-hull connection model.
I:! = axial deflection of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg model
alone.
I:!e = axial deflection of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg plus leg-
hull connection model.
8 = end slope of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg model alone.
8e = end slope of cantilever at point of load application for detailed leg plus leg-hull
connection model.
APPENDIX CS.A - DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE GEOMETRIC STIFFNESS
FORMULATION FOR P-A EFFECTS
C5.A.l SUMMARY
The method described below allows a simple procedure for incorporating P-A effects in
a jack-up structural analysis. The advantage of this simple procedure is the ability to
include such effects without the necessity to adopt the iterative procedures required by
other methods. This method is accurate in determining the global response parameters,
including hull displacement and base overturning moment. It is also accurate in
determining the leg moment below the lower guide (usually the most critical part of the
leg). In its simplest form the procedure will conservatively predict the shear in the legs
(by roughly 10%). However leg shear is rarely a controlling factor in structural
assessments; therefore this difference is insignificant.
C5.A.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD
It is assumed that a structural computer model of a jack-up is used to determine the

effects of applied loads. Typically, a 'static' wave load is applied to a structural model,
and resulting deflections, forces and moments are determined. Note, however, that the
method can be similarly applied to dynamic analysis. (The method may not be
permitted by some software packages which 'prohibit' the use of a negative spring
stiffness).
The incorporation of P-A effects in the structural analysis is accomplished by including

a correction term in the global stiffness matrix of the structure. When an analysis is
performed with the correction term included, the resulting deflections, etc. will include
P-A effects. Note that since the global stiffness matrix is modified before the analysis,
no subsequent changes to the matrix are required (i.e. no iterations are required in the
solution).
The correction term to the global stiffness matrix is determined by a simple hand
calculation:
The correction term is: -PgIL
where;
Pg =
Effective hull gravity load. This includes hull weight and weight of the legs
above the hull.
L = The distance from the spudcan point of rotation to the hull center of gravity.
This single (negative) value is then incorporated into the global stiffness matrix of the
jack-up structural model. This can be accomplished in various ways depending on the
software in use. Typically, an orthogonal pair of horizontal translational earthed spring
elements can be attached to a node representing the hull center of gravity, and the
negative value is entered for each of the spring constants. Some software packages
allow direct matrix manipulation.
The effect of the negative stiffness is to produce an additional overturning load at the
hull. The overturning moment produced by this lateral load about the base is equal to
the overturning moment caused by the vertical load (of hull and legs above the hull)
times the deflection of the hull. Thus, the effect of the translation of the vertical load is
incorporated as a lateral force couple.
C5.A.3 BASIS FOR THE METHOD
The P-Ll effect is a consideration of the displacement of the structure under the applied
loads. In its most general form, the solution considers the displacements of each
element of the structure under loading. This is typically called a 'large displacement'
solution. In this general procedure, the deflections of the structure are used to reform
the stiffness matrix, which is then used to recalculate the displacements. While this is
analytically correct, there is a requirement to resolve the stiffness matrix several times
for each loading condition.
If the overall structural displacements are not very large, approximate solutions may be
used. Typically, approximate solutions are valid if tane = e, where e is the rotation of
the structure about its base. These approximate 'solutions are known as 'geometric
stiffness' solutions. The classical column moment magnification or 'Euler
amplification' term is an example. The simple method presented here is another
example. A comparison of these two methods is given in Section C5.AA and the
derivation is presented in Section C5.A.5.
The P-Ll effect for jack-up structures is manifested as a change in lateral stiffness of the
individual legs, given a change in the axial load in each leg. For jack-ups the change in
axial load in each leg is caused by the application of the gravity loading and
environmental loading. As shown in Section C5.A.5, the net effect on the P-Ll of the
axial load changes in each leg due to the environmental loading will cancel out. Thus,
for overall structural response, only the gravity load need be considered in the
calculation of P-Ll effects. The reduced stiffness will then affect the response to
environmental loadings.
C5.AA VERIFICATION AGAINST 'EXACT' SOLUTION
Verification of this simple procedure was made against an 'exact' solution. In this case,
the 'exact' solution was performed using analysis software which accounts for large
displacements. In this procedure, the displaced configuration of the structure is used to
update the stiffness matrix, and iteration is used to converge on a given solution.
Verification was performed using a jack-up structural model as shown in Figure

C5.A.1. The leg chord, horizontal and diagonal members are modeled as individual
elements. The hull (in this case) is assumed to act as a rigid body. The hull to leg
connection included leg clamping devices. These were modeled along with the leg
guides. For the purpose of this verification the detailing of the hull and leglhull
connection is not important. The spudcans were modeled as 'pinned'.
Loading of the model was accomplished as shown on Figure C5.A.2. Loadings due to
wave and wind (and dynamic inertial) were considered separately to verify the behavior
under the two separate types of loading. The loading direction was towards the bow in
both cases. For each case, a vertical load was applied at the hull center of gravity. It is
interesting to note that the vertical load is necessary for solution using 'exact' large
displacement methods, but is not needed to obtain a solution using the simple method.
A summary of the comparison results is given on Tables C5.A.l (wave load) and
C5.A.2 (wind load). Verification with these two load cases was done separately, since
the loading occurs on different parts of the structure. The level of loading is arbitrary.
Values assumed here are greater than used in the site assessment of this particular jack-
up.
Discussion of the individual response parameters from Tables C5.A.l and C5.A.2 is
given below.
C5.A.4.1 Global Response Parameters
The fundamental response quantities of deck displacement and overturning moment

agree to within 1%. The base shear for the simple method is not correct since it
includes the additional (fictitious) lateral force applied to the hull. The difference
between the total applied force and the base shear is the additional lateral force applied
at the hull. In theory the moment due to the vertical load (P-~ moment) should be
replaced by a lateral force couple, i.e. lateral loads at the hull and base. Reduction of
the base shear (in global axes) by this additional lateral force at the hull will equate the
global base shear with the applied load.
C5.AA.2 Windward and Leeward leg parameters
The values for individual leg axial load and moment at the lower guide agree to within
1%. These quantities are the most critical parameters for structural assessments.
The distribution of global base shear among the individual legs is not as accurately
matched by the simple method. For each leg, the lateral stiffness is decreased by
increasing axial load. Thus, the distribution of global base shear will depend on the
axial load present in each leg. The simple method, since it lumps the effects of all legs
into one correction term, cannot accurately predict the shear re-distribution among the
legs.
This lack of re-distribution of global base shear loading is not generally important to a
structural assessment. The amount will depend on the level and type of loading (wave
or wind). For the two cases given, 1% and 5% of the total base shear load (in global
axes) is shifted from the leeward leg to the windward legs.
When the leg base shears are not corrected, the simple method conservatively over-
predicts the shear in the legs. Since shear force is not as critical as the leg bending
moment this conservatism is not very restricti ve.
If a correction is desired, the added lateral load at the hull can be subtracted in equal
fractions from the leg spudcan reactions (in global axes). Note that, for the case of the
windward leg, this will slightly under-predict the 'correct' global shear reaction.
TABLE C5.A.l - VERIFICATION OF SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR P-Ll EFFECT WITH
EXACT SOLUTION - WAVE LOADING CASE
Sim~le Exact
No P-Ll Method Solution
Global res~onse ~arameters
Hull displacement (inches) 21.6 24.5 24.7
3
Base OTM (Kip-ft x 10 ) 227. 253. 251.
Base shear (kips) 711. 780. 711.
(Added lateral load at hull, kips) (69.)
Windward leg ~arameters

Axial force (kips) 3638. 3524. 3534.
Shear at spudcan (kips) 250. 272. 254.
(Corrected by 69/3 = 23 kips) (249.)
Moment at lower guide (Kip-ft x 103) 48. 56. 56.
Leeward leg ~arameters

Axial force (kips) 5477. 5706. 5685.
Shear transferred from leeward leg to o. 8.
windward legs due to P-Ll (kips)
TABLE C5.A.2 - VERIFICATION OF SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR P-L1 EFFECT

WITH EXACT SOLUTION - WIND LOADING CASE
Sim~le Exact
No P-Ll method Solution
Global res~onse ~arameters
Hull displacement (inches) 44.9 51.0 51.4
Base OTM (Kip-ft x 103) 490. 545. 541.
Base shear (kips) 1055. 1198. 1055.
(Added lateral load at hull, kips) (143.)
Windward leg ~arameters

Axial force (kips) 2538. 2300. 2318.
Leeward leg ~arameters

Axial force (kips) 7803. 8279. 8242.
Shear transferred from leeward leg to o. 47.
windward legs due to P-Ll (kips)
(BowLeg)
Figure C5.A.l - Analysis model
I -j2m "".
-$-------
Wind = 1055 kips ~
L=4592'
Wave. =711 kips
:J,;. -
(BowLeg)
Figure C5.A.2 - Load application

CS.A.S DERIVATION OF THE SIMPLIFIED CORRECTION TERM
Centroid of area under

moment diagram
Asswncd sinc CUlVC

Z-L
1t
Beam Deflection Moment diagram

(due to secondary bending only)
Ref.: Salmon and Johnson, 'Steel Structures', p 620.
Yo = Deflection without axial load, P

Yl = Additional lateral deflection due to axial load, P
To calculate Yh take moment of MlEI diagram between support and midspan
Yl = P(Y~;Yl) {~ }{~}
L Centroid of area unde~ moment diagram
Rearranging:
I I
1-._ _ -J.-._ _ _ _ Area under moment diagram
4pe
Yl = (Yo + Yl) n 2EI
using:
n 2EI
PE = (with k =2)
(kL)2
P
Yl = (Yo + Yl)-
PE
Yl
= { PIPE }
Yo I-PIPE
Total lateral deflection: Ymax = Yo + Yl
PIPE }
Ymax = Yo + Yo { 1- PIPE
= YO{l-:,pJ
I I
I 'Euler amplification' term
Detennine effect on stiffness
H
Define Ko = Lateral stiffness without axial load, P
Yo
3EI
= L3
H
Define KI = Lateral stiffness with axial load, P
Ymax
= ~{l-~}
Yo P E
= K+-P[:~]}
= Ko _p{3EI}{~}
L3 n2EI
= Ko- {~*P}
n L2
Conclusion: Effective lateral stiffness reduced by

P = axial load in one leg
Note: This is based on assuming a sine curve for deflection.

Repeat calculations assuming a linear deflection (rather than a sine curve):
YI = P( Y~; Y1) {~}{ 2~ }
I I 1 . . -_ _
I
L -_ _..L..-_ _ _ _
Centroid of area under moment diagram
Area under moment diagram
Rearranging:
pe
YI = (Yo + YI) 3EI
{PL'/3EI }
YI = Yo 1 _ PL2 / 3EI
Ymax = Yo + YI
Ymax =
Yo { 1 - PL~ / 3EI}
I I
1 . . -_ _ _ __ Amplification for linear assumption
Detennine effect on stiffness

H
Define Ko = Lateral stiffness without axial load, P
Yo
3EI
=
H
Define Kl = Lateral stiffness with axial load, P
Ymax
P
= Ko--
L
Conclusion: Based on linear deflection assumption, lateral stiffness is reduced by -PIL

term. This is the usual approximation of geometric stiffness.
Effect on total jack-up stiffness:
KE = Kel + Kez + Ke3 sum of individual leg stiffnesses (neglects hull rotation)
For each leg:

P = P gravity + P environment
12 1 12 1
KE = [kol - -2 -
n L
(Pgl + Pel)] + [koz - - 2 - (PgZ + P eZ )] + ...
n L
12 1 12 1
= (kol + koz + ko3) - - 2 - (Pal + PaZ + Pa3) - - 2 - (Pel + P eZ + P e3 )
nL <> <> <> nL
Assume net vertical environmental load (Pel + P eZ + P e3) = 0

KE = (LKoD - -n122 -PLG , where Pa is total gravity load only
If linear deflection assumption is made:

PG
KE = (LKoD--
L
C6 COMMENTARY TO CALCULATION METHODS . GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
C6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Commentary is compiled to support Section 6 of the PRACTICE and should only
be used as a reference document in conjunction with the text of the PRACTICE.
A Glossary of Terms used for the Geotechnical Engineering Analysis is included at the
end of this Commentary.
C6.2 PREDICTION OF FOOTING PENETRATION DURING PRELOADING
C6.2.1 Analysis Method for Leg Penetration Prediction
The equations in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 may be applied for estimating the penetration
of the spudcan during preloading. In this case the backflow and contribution of the
spudcan buoyancy (due to the weight of soil replaced by the spudcan) will have a direct
effect on the penetration depth. Hence the effect of backflow and spudcan buoyancy
should be included in the calculations.
Predictions of spudcan penetration are based on a direct application of conventional

bearing capacity formulae for shallow circular flat foundations. However, the analysis
methods for shallow foundations and spudcan penetration predictions are fundamentally
different as illustrated in Figure C6.1. Conventional foundation analyses for a circular
footing at depth D firstly comprise the determination of the ultimate bearing capacity,
F v, at this depth and subsequently computing the vertical displacement of this footing,
zu, which is required to mobilize this resistance. Thus the analyses consist of a strength
analysis followed by a deformation analysis.
Q..
'mm~ ___ ~@l ~I;r

Displacement, z
+
Conventional analyse:s for shallow foundation i.ns1alJ.e:d at dc:pth D:
1. Compute: ultimate load Qv
2. Dc:tc:nninc: displacemc:nt Xu to re:ach Qv
Q..
~I----L-~--1\:::. ·:··1
Spudcan
penc:tration D
~
Conventional anaIyse:s for spudcan at pene:tration D.
1. Compute: dtimatc: load Qv
Figure C6.1 : Comparison of bearing capacity analytical procedures

for shallow foundations and jack-ups
In a spudcan penetration analysis the deformation at ultimate resistance (i.e. the

spudcan penetration D) is taken as an input and from this the associated soil resistance
is directly computed. The conventional analysis consist of only one step using the same
bearing capacity criteria as for the former shallow foundation analyses. The
incompatibility between these approaches is generally accounted for by the application
of empirical corrections to classical bearing capacity formulations.
These empirical corrections are generally introduced by the selection of appropriate soil
strength parameters. It is also noted that these corrections account for other significant
differences between conventional shallow foundations and spudcans, such as:
1. Spudcans are relatively smooth (steel) and (semi) conical whereas the other
footings are usually rough (concrete) and flat.
2. Spudcan foundations stress soil which, during installation, has been subjected to
large strains, whereas conventional foundations are placed on soil which has not
failed. Also for conventional foundations the soil may have improved due to
"pre-design" foundation loads causing increased strength by consolidation.
3. Spudcans are an order of magnitude larger than most conventional foundations.
For the conservative evaluation of the hole backflow the PRACTICE recommends that
the stability factors of Meyerhoff [1] are used. However, for normally consolidated clay
profiles the Britto and Kusakabe [2] curve may be more appropriate (see Figure C6.2).
It should be noted that the expression in Section 6.2.1 is based on static hole stability. In
reality, during penetration of the spudcan the soil will probably flow along the spudcan
upwards on to the top of the spudcan. Hence, the hole stability derived from the
expression provided in Section 6.2.1 may be too optimistic.
lhI<:Immod. _heel' sImlgtlI
T'
T1) ~ t..ll. ....... }
~ 2
1t + 1) •••••••••••••..
Constant strength Normal consolidation

profile strength profile
r--'--~J=:::::j:===t===:J=:::::t- Britto and Kusakabc [2J

(less conservative approach, useful for
Z 8 nounally consolidated clayprofilc.)
~ '---+--+-Mcycmof. [IJ . . th
~ 7 (conservative approach as given m c
.~ 1--~........,,4--+--+--+---I PRACTICE main tcxt)
:s
~6~~-~-+-~--+-~
Ncu
UlISIobl. : D 7"
40~-+2-~4~-+6-~-~~1·2
Depth D
Width 'B ----..
Figure C6.2: Stability factors for cylindrical excavations in clay

C6.2.2 Penetration Analysis For Clays
For the selection of undrained shear strength, cu, it is recommended that the mean value
to a depth of half a spudcan diameter beneath the level where the maximum spudcan
diameter is in contact with the soil is used (Young [3]).
This method is applicable if the shear strength values up to one diameter below the
spudcan do not vary more than 50 percent from the average value (after Skempton [4]).
If significant Cu variations occur, then the bearing capacity should be computed using a
method for layered soil conditions.
Analytical solutions are available for computing the bearing capacity of footings on clay
with increasing shear strength with depth (Davis and Booker, [5]); Salencon and Matar,
[6]; Houlsby and Wroth, [7]). These methods give bearing capacities less than those
reSUlting from the use of Skempton's [4] and Vesic [8] relationships. Empirical
correction factors for the Skempton [4] and the Davis and Booker [5] methods are
recommended by Endley et al [9].
However these empirical methods take no account of the spudcan equivalent cone
angle, the spudcan roughness factor or the depth of spudcan embedment of the
uppermost part of the bearing area below the soil surface.
An alternative bearing capacity factor Ne ' has been developed which takes these factors,
and that of increased shear strength with depth, into account. In this case the ultimate
bearing capacity of a spudcan in clay can be expressed by:
Fv = {cuoNe' + Po'} A
The maximum preload, VLo , is equal to the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, Fv, taking
into account the effect of backflow, Fo'A, and the effective weight of the soil replaced
by the spudcan, y'V i.e.:
VLo = Fv - FaA + y'V
noting that the terms -FaA + y'V should always be considered together.
Table C6 provides values for Ne' which is an alternative dimensionless bearing capacity
factor dependent on:
(a) The equivalent cone angle of the spudcan~. For spudcans with multiple cone
angles, the equivalent cone has a base equal to the base of the largest component
and a volume equal to the total volume of the components,
(b) The roughness factor for the spudcan surface ex,
(c) The depth of embedment of the uppermost part of the bearing area below the
soil surface D,
(d) The rate of increase of the undrained shear strength with depth below the
spudcan "p" (see Figure C6.3).
The alternative non-dimensional bearing capacity factors "Ne '" shown in Tables C6.1 to
C6.6 have been derived using a computer program which is able to calculate lower
bound (conservative) collapse loads for both axisymmetric and plane strain foundations.
Vertical bearing capacity has been computed for all combinations of the following
parameters:
UNDRAINED STRENG'IH PROFILE

i
i
i+-R
i
,i
,
Soil: 1\>= 0;
l' =0;
Tresca Yield
Criterion
Footina Base Level

............. ___ .................. __ .. c-...•............ _............................ . Cuo = Com+ ~
Undrained Footing J Soil

Adhesion = au ;
Roughness Factor ct = ao/Cu
Figure C6.3: Conical footing bearing capacity - problem definition and

notation
Cone angle, ~ = 30°,60°,90°, 120°, 150°, 180°.
Footing embedment depth, DIR = 0.0, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0.
Roughness factor, ex = 0.0,0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0

(where ex =0.0 for fully smooth and 1.0 for fully rough)
Rate of increase of clay shear strength with depth,

p2R1cum =0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,4.0, 5.0.
The effects of the depth of embedment and the rate of increase of shear strength with
depth are expressed by use of the dimensionless factors D/2R and p2R1cum , where Cum is
the undrained strength at the soil surface (equal to Cua - Dp assuming a linear variation
of strength with depth) and R is the radius of the spudcan.
Values of the dimensionless factor Nc' are given in Tables C6.1 to C6.6 for the range:
~ = 30° to 180° ex = 0.0 to 1.0
D/2R = 0.0 to 2.5 ; p2R1cum = 0.0 to 5.0
The factors are calculated assuming a linear variation of undrained strength with depth.
The best fit to the profile of undrained strength between the depth of the lowermost
point of the maximum bearing area and one radius below that point should be used in
deriving the value of p.
In the model a field of slip lines is formed between the footing and the horizontal free
soil surface. This type of "general shear" failure mechanism is appropriate for the
shallow footing penetrations being considered. At larger embedments, however, the
slip lines do not propagate to the surface as the "local shear" failure mechanism
becomes
critical (i.e. it gives a lower bearing capacity). A transition from general to local shear
failure may be predicted at footing embedments between 6R and SR. The greatest
embedment considered in the tables is 5R, so the general shear bearing capacity factors
are still appropriate for this depth. Therefore Table C6.6 should not be extrapolated to
higher values of D12R, since the bearing capacity factor does not increase significantly
with further embedment. Values for DI2R = 2.5 should be used for large embedments.
Although a footing may be fully rough (a = 1.0), full adhesion is only mobilized at the
cone surface when ~ ~ 900 • For cone angles greater than 90 0 , only partial friction is
mobilized. In general, if the roughness factor is a, full friction is mobilized only when
~ < 1t - sin-lao This relationship may be derived using Mohr's Circle.
For the selection of appropriate roughness factors the results of mathematical models
(Noble Denton [lOaD suggest that the presence of a sharp secondary cone, forming the
tip of spudcan, tends to cause "rough" behavior. Rough blunt spudcans behave in a
similar manner to flat circular plates but more pointed spudcans behave as neither fully
rough nor fully smooth and have intermediate roughness factors of between a =0.3 to
0.5. In the absence of detailed information, and as an approximation, a value of a =0.4
may be appropriate for typical "double cone" spudcan shapes.
For further information regarding this alternative method for bearing capacity analysis
in clay reference should be made to Houlsby [11, 12, 13], Koumoto [14] and Houlsby
[15].
It is noted that footing penetration predictions are generally made using shear strength
data from simple laboratory tests such as torvane, pocket penetrometer, motorvane
and/or unconfined compression tests. Strength values from such tests are generally
lower than those of higher quality in-situ or laboratory tests, particularly if samples for
the latter tests are obtained from push/piston sampling rather than the percussion
sampling method.
It is likely that the former testing methods may yield low bearing capacity values for
very sensitive clays and/or strongly strain softening clays. Engineering judgment is
required in such cases to assess the likely footing penetration.
It is noted that in some clays, following remolding during spudcan penetration, the
shear strength may increase over a short time period. For certain clays the strength may
be regained in a matter of hours. In such cases, a crust of stronger material may
develop underneath the spudcan and this crust may then be underlain by weaker clay. In
this condition a potential punch-through situation could occur during subsequent
reloading. Several actual failures have been attributed to this type of soil behavior
(Young et al., [3D. For soils where this type of strength hardening (thixotropy) is
possible caution should be exercised as interruptions during the preloading operations
could lead to severe consequences.
For the conservative assessment of the effects of cyclic loading on clay foundations the
following vertical bearing capacity reduction factors may be applied to the capacities
calculated from static soil properties (Andersen [16D:
Leeward leg vertical bearing capacity reduction factor = 1.0
Windward leg vertical bearing capacity reduction factor = O.S

TABLE C6.1 TABLE C6.2 ~g
30 degrees cones Fv/(Acuo) factors 60 degrees cones FvliAcuo) factors \)"~
p2R D Cuo p2R Roughness p2R D Guo p2R Roughness :::::.~
(\) (\)
--- - --- --- --- - --- --- ~~
Cum R Cum Cuo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cum R Cum Guo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 (") t:l
~ ~.
0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 4.61 5.51 6.38 7.22 8.03 8.78 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 4.45 4.96 5.45 5.90 6.32 6.69 ~~
0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 4.80 5.70 6.56 7.40 8.20 8.95 0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 4.68 5.19 5.67 6.12 6.53 6.90 C
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.05
5.41
5.98
5.94
6.29
6.85
6.80
7.14
7.70
7.63
7.79
8.51
8.43
8.76
9.29
9.18
9.50
10.03
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.98
5.41
6.07
5.50
5.90
6.55
5.96
6.37
7.01
6.40
6.81
7.43
6.81
7.21
7.84
7.18
7.57
8.18
-.
~~
~
(\)
(")
C
0.0 5.0 1.00 0.00 7.12 7.98 8.81 9.61 10.38 11.10 0.0 5.0 1.00 0.00 7.33 7.81 8.25 8.66 9.05 9.39 ~
~
(\)
1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 7.53 9.02 10.46 11.84 13.19 14.46 1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 5.81 6.51 7.15 7.77 8.34 8.87 ;:::
1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 7.45 8.89 10.27 11.61 12.90 14.13 1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 5.92 6.59 7.23 7.83 8.38 8.89 f}
1.0 0.5 1.25 0.80 7.38 8.73 10.05 11.32 12.55 13.72 1.0 0.5 1.25 0.80 6.04 6.70 7.30 7.88 8.42 8.91 t:l...
1.0 1.0 1.50 0.67 7.28 8.55 9.78 10.98 12.14 13.24 1.0 1.0 1.50 0.67 6.20 6.84 7.41 7.96 8.47 8.94
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.00
3.50
0.50
0.29
7.20
7.34
8.38
8.39
9.51
9.39
10.61
10.37
11.68
11.30
12.68
12.19
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.00
3.50
0.50
0.29
6.43
6.97
7.05
7.55
7.58
8.08
8.12
8.54
8.59
8.98
9.03
9.39 ~
......
~.
2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 10.45 12.51 14.51 16.44 18.31 20.10 2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 7.14 8.02 8.84 9.60 10.32 10.99
2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 9.65 11.53 13.33 15.08 16.79 18.40 2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 6.92 7.73 8.49 9.21 9.88 10.50 'C..,">
2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 8.89 10.58 12.19 13.76 15.27 16.72 2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 6.74 7.50 8.18 8.84 9.46 10.03
2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 8.20 9.67 11.09 12.47 13.80 15.08 2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 6.59 7.29 7.91 8.53 9.09 9.61 V:l
2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 7.60 8.87 10.10 11.30 12.45 13.54 2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 6.55 7.20 7.76 8.33 8.83 9.30 ~
2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 7.37 8.44 9.48 10.18 11.44 12.35 2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 6.99 7.49 8.03 8.50 8.95 9.37
~
(\)
3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 13.36 15.98 18.56 21.03 23.42 25.71 3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 8.49 9.54 10.50 11.42 12.29 13.10 (")
3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 11.51 13.76 15.92 18.02 20.05 22.00 3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 7.77 8.70 9.56 10.38 11.14 11.85 'S;
3.0 1.71 9.98 13.72 15.49 17.21 3.0 ~(")
0.5 1.75 11.89 18.85 0.5 1.75 1.71 7.24 8.03 8.80 9.53 10.20 10.82 (\)~
3.0 1.0 2.50 1.20 8.74 10.33 11.87 13.36 14.80 16.18 3.0 1.0 2.50 1.20 6.82 7.56 8.21 8.86 9.45 10.00 -0::: ~
3.0 2.0 4.00 0.75 7.79 9.11 10.39 11.64 12.83 13.98 3.0 2.0 4.00 0.75 6.60 7.27 7.85 8.44 8.94 9.43 ~t'-.) ~
3.0 5.0 8.50 0.35 7.40 8.46 9.51 10.52 11.49 12.42 3.0 5.0 8.50 0.35 6.99 7.47 8.01 8.49 8.94 ~
9.36
~~
~
;::: (\)
4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 16.27 19.46 22.57 25.62 28.52 31.32 4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 9.83 11.02 12.16 13.24 14.26 15.18 t'-.);:::
4.0 0.2 1.40 2.86 13.10 15.68 18.14 20.54 22.86 25.08 4.0 0.2 1.40 2.86 8.51 9.52 10.48 11.38 12.22 13.00 C ......
4.0
4.0
0.5
1.0
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.33
10.83
9.11
12.87
10.77
14.86
12.38
16.79
13.96
18.66
15.47
20.44
16.91
4.0
4.0
0.5
1.0
2.00
3.00
2.00
1.33
7.61
6.97
8.44
7.74
9.26
8.41
10.04
9.08
10.75
9.69
11.41
10.26
~~
4.0 2.0 5.00 0.80 7.91 9.26 10.57 11.84 13.06 14.23 4.0 2.0 5.00 0.80 6.64 7.31 7.90 8.49 9.01 9.51
4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 7.40 8.47 9.52 10.54 11.52 12.46 4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 6.86 7.45 8.00 8.48 8.94 9.35
5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 19.18 22.94 26.61 30.20 33.63 36.92 5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 11.17 12.52 13.83 15.06 16.20 17.26
5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 14.48 17.33 20.06 22.72 25.29 27.75 5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 9.14 10.23 11.26 12.25 13.15
~
13.99
5.0 0.5 2.25 2.22 11.46 13.64 15.75 17.80 19.78 21.68 5.0 0.5 2.25 2.22 7.90 8.78 9.63 10.43 11.17 11.87
5.0 1.0 3.50 1.43 9.37 11.08 12.77 14.38 15.94 17.43 5.0 1.0 3.50 1.43 7.08 7.84 8.55 9.24 9.86 10.45
5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 7.98 9.35 10.68 11.97 13.21 14.40 5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 6.66 7.32 7.94 8.53 9.06 9.56 '"-
5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 7.40 8.47 9.53 10.56 11.55 12.48 5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 6.85 7.44 7.99 8.47 8.93 9.35 ~
TABLE C6.3 TABLE C6.4
90 degrees cones Fv/(Acuol factors 120 degrees cones Fv/IAcuo ) factors ~g
p2R D Cuo p2R Roughness p2R D Cuo p2R Roughness ~~
- --- --- ......:.~
--- --- - --- --- ~ ~
Cum R Cum Cuo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cum R Cum Cuo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ~;::s
(:5 ~
0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 4.64 5.02 5.36 5.67 5.95 6.17 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 4.96 5.25 5.51 5.73 5.92 6.05 ..,..., :::!
~.
0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 4.90 5.28 5.61 5.91 6.18 6.41 0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 5.23 5.52 5.77 5.99 6.17 6.30 ~~
0.0 0.5 1.00 0.00 5.22 5.59 5.93 6.23 6.49 6.71 0.0 0.5 1.00 0.00 5.57 5.85 6.10 6.31 6.49 6.62 cs-
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.68
6.37
7.65
6.03
6.71
8.03
6.36
7.05
8.32
6.66
7.32
8.60
6.92
7.58
8.86
7.14
7.79
9.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.04
6.74
8.07
6.31
7.01
8.32
6.55
7.24
8.55
6.76
7.44
8.75
6.93
7.61
8.90
7.05
7.72
8.99
-.
~~
t;j ~
~
C
~
1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 5.57 6.05 6.47 6.87 7.22 7.53 1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 5.69 6.04 6.36 6.65 6.89 7.09 ~
~
1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 5.74 6.21 6.62 7.00 7.36 7.65 1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 5.89 6.24 6.55 6.82 7.07 7.26 ;::s
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.25
1.50
0.80
0.67
5.94
6.16
6.38
6.61
6.79
6.99
7.16
7.36
7.50
7.68
7.79
7.97
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.25
1.50
0.80
0.67
6.12
6.39
6.45
6.72
6.76
7.01
7.02
7.27
7.26
7.48
7.45
7.66
~
t::l..
1.0 2.0 2.00 0.50 6.50 6.93 7.30 7.64 7.95 8.21 1.0 2.0 2.00 0.50 6.80 7.10 7.37 7.61 7.82 7.97
1.0 5.0 3.50 0.29 7.25 7.57 7.94 8.25 8.53 8.78 1.0 5.0 3.50 0.29 7.52 7.82 8.08 8.29 8.49 8.61 i
~
.......
2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 6.46 7.03 7.54 8.01 8.45 8.82 2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 6.38 6.79 7.16 7.50 7.80 8.04 ~.
2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 6.41 6.94 7.43 7.88 8.28 8.65 2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 6.41 6.80 7.16 7.47 7.75 7.97 ~
2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 6.41 6.88 7.35 7.76 8.14 8.46 2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 6.46 6.83 7.17 7.46 7.72 7.94 ~
"'!
2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 6.40 6.88 7.29 7.69 8.03 8.35 2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 6.56 6.91 7.22 7.49 7.74 7.92
2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 6.54 6.99 7.37 7.73 8.06 8.33 2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 6.80 7.12 7.40 7.65 7.87 8.03 ~
~.
2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 7.16 7.49 7.86 8.18 8.47 8.72 2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 7.43 7.72 7.99 8.21 8.41 8.53
3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 7.36 8.00 8.59 9.14 9.65 10.08 3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 7.04 7.51 7.93 8.31 8.66 8.93 ~
~
3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 6.99 7.57 8.10 8.60 9.05 9.45 3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 6.84 7.27 7.65 8.00 8.31 8.57 ~
3.0 0.5 1.75 1.71 6.70 7.24 7.73 8.17 8.59 8.94 3.0 0.5 1.75 1.71 6.71 7.09 7.45 7.76 8.05 8.27 '5;
1.0 2.50 1.20 6.54 7.04 7.47 7.88 8.24 8.57 1.0 ~~
3.0 3.0 2.50 1.20 6.66 7.02 7.34 7.63 7.88 8.08 ~ ~
3.0 2.0 4.00 0.75 6.56 7.02 7.41 7.78 8.11 8.39 3.0 2.0 4.00 0.75 6.81 7.11 7.41 7.67 7.89 8.06 ~
3.0 5.0 8.50 0.35 7.12 7.46 7.83 8.15 8.44 8.46 3.0 5.0 8.50 0.35 7.38 7.68 7.95 8.17 8.38 8.51 .....
-.::
~
~
~
~~
4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 8.22 8.96 9.64 10.25 10.82 11.33 4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 7.70 8.22 8.69 9.11 9.49 9.81 ;::s ~
4.0
4.0
0.2
0.5
1.40
2.00
2.86
2.00
7.49
6.94
8.11
7.50
8.68
8.01
9.22
8.48
9.70
8.92
10.14
9.29
4.0
4.0
0.2
0.5
1.40
2.00
2.86
2.00
7.20
6.88
7.66
7.28
8.07
7.65
8.44
7.98
8.77
8.27
9.03
8.53
W~
0 .......
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.00
5.00
1.33
0.80
6.63
6.57
7.15
7.03
7.58
7.43
8.01
7.80
8.38
8.14
8.72
8.42
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.00
5.00
1.33
0.80
6.72
6.80
7.08
7.12
7.42
7.41
7.71
7.68
7.97
7.90
8.18
8.08
~~
4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 7.05 7.44 7.81 8.13 8.42 8.67 4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 7.39 7.66 7.93 8.15 8.36 8.49
5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 9.11 9.93 10.66 11.35 12.00 12.56 5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 8.35 8.91 9.43 9.89 10.31 10.67
5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 7.87 8.55 9.17 9.74 10.26 10.75 5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 7.52 7.99 8.43 8.82 9.18 9.95 "'tl
5.0
5.0
0.5
1.0
2.25
3.50
2.22
1.43
7.12
6.70
7.71
7.22
8.24
7.67
8.72
8.09
9.17
8.47
9.57
8.82
5.0
5.0
0.5
1.0
2.25
3.50
2.22
1.43
7.01
6.77
7.43
7.13
7.81
7.47
8.15
7.77
8.45
8.03
8.72
8.25
~
~
5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 6.57 7.04 7.44 7.82 8.16 8.44 5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 6.80 7.12 7.42 7.69 7.91 8.09 .....
5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 7.03 7.42 7.80 8.12 8.41 8.66 5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 7.34 7.64 7.91 8.14 8.34 8.48 ~
TABLE C6.5 TABLE C6.6
150 deQrees cones Fv/(Acuo) factors 180 deQrees cones FvlAcuo ) factors ~g
p2R D Cuo p2R Roughness p2R D Cuo p2R Roughness c::.--~
--- - --- --- --- - --- --- :::::.~
(I) (I)
Cum R Cum Cuo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cum R Cum Cuo 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ~~
0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 5.32 5.55 5.74 5.89 6.01 6.05 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.00 5.69 5.86 5.97 6.03 6.05 6.05 ~, § (I).
~""C
0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 5.60 5.82 6.00 6.16 6.26 6.30 0.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 5.97 6.13 6.24 6.29 6.30 6.30
0.0 0.5 1.00 0.00 5.94 6.16 6.34 6.49 6.59 6.61 0.0 0.5 1.00 0.00 6.31 6.47 6.57 6.61 6.61 6.61
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
6.41
7.13
6.62
7.32
6.80
7.49
6.94
7.62
7.03
7.71
7.05
7.72
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
6.79
7.49
6.93
7.63
7.02
7.70
7.05
7.71
7.05
7.71
7.05
7.71
~~
_. (I)
0.0 5.0 1.00 0.00 8.46 8.65 8.81 8.93 8.99 8.99 0.0 5.0 1.00 0.00 8.82 8.94 8.99 8.99 8.99 8.99 ~ ~
C
~
1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 5.94 6.22 6.46 6.67 6.84 6.97 1.0 0.0 1.00 1.00 6.25 6.47 6.65 6.79 6.90 6.95 ~
(I)
1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 6.16 6.43 6.67 6.87 7.04 7.15 1.0 0.2 1.10 0.91 6.48 6.69 6.87 7.00 7.10 7.14 ~
1.0 0.5 1.25 0.80 6.41 6.67 6.90 7.09 7.25 7.36 1.0 0.5 1.25 0.80 6.74 6.94 7.11 7.23 7.32 7.35 f}
1.0 1.0 1.50 0.67 6.71 6.96 7.18 7.36 7.51 7.60 1.0 1.0 1.50 0.67 7.05 7.24 7.39 7.51 7.58 7.60 $:l....
1.0 2.0 2.00 0.50 7.13 7.36 7.57 7.73 7.86 7.95 1.0 2.0 2.00 0.50 7.47 7.64 7.79 7.88 7.93 7.94
1.0 5.0 3.50 0.29 7.91 8.12 8.31 8.44 8.56 8.61 1.0 5.0 3.50 0.29 8.26 8.32 8.52 8.60 8.61 8.61
i
~
......
2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 6.50 6.82 7.11 7.35 7.57 7.73 2.0 0.0 1.00 2.00 6.73 6.98 7.20 7.39 7.53 7.63 ;::;.
2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 6.59 6.90 7.16 7.40 7.59 7.74 2.0 0.2 1.20 1.67 6.85 7.08 7.30 7.46 7.59 7.68 (I)
2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 6.69 6.98 7.23 7.45 7.63 7.76 2.0 0.5 1.50 1.33 6.98 7.20 7.39 7.55 7.66 7.72 ~
2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 6.84 7.10 7.34 7.54 7.70 7.82 2.0 1.0 2.00 1.00 7.15 7.36 7.53 7.67 7.76 7.80 ""!
2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 7.11 7.35 7.57 7.74 7.89 7.99 2.0 2.0 3.00 0.67 7.45 7.63 7.78 7.90 7.96 7.98 ~
.......
2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 7.81 8.01 8.21 8.35 8.47 8.53 2.0 5.0 6.00 0.33 8.16 8.27 8.43 8.50 8.53 8.53 (I)
3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 7.03 7.40 7.72 7.98 8.24 8.43 3.0 0.0 1.00 3.00 7.16 7.45 7.69 7.91 8.08 8.21 ~
(I)
3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 6.94 7.27 7.56 7.81 8.03 8.21 3.0 0.2 1.30 2.31 7.13 7.40 7.62 7.81 7.96 8.07 ~
3.0 0.5 1.75 1.71 6.88 7.18 7.45 7.68 7.88 8.03 3.0 0.5 1.75 1.71 7.15 7.37 7.58 7.75 7.88 7.96 'S
3.0 1.0 2.50 1.20 6.91 7.18 7.43 7.63 7.81 7.94 3.0 1.0 2.50 1.20 7.21 7.42 7.61 7.75 7.86 7.91 ~~
~
(I)
3.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
4.00
8.50
0.75
0.35
7.10
7.76
7.35
7.97
7.57
8.16
7.75
8.31
7.90
8.43
8.00
8.49
3.0
3.0
2.0
5.0
4.00
8.50
0.75
0.35
7.43
8.13
7.62
8.23
7.78
8.38
7.90
8.46
7.97
8.49
7.99
8.49
..:
........
~
""""
(I)
~~
4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 7.55 7.94 8.30 8.58 8.88 9.10 4.0 0.0 1.00 4.00 7.56 7.87 8.15 8.38 8.58 8.73 ~ (I)
~
4.0 0.2 1.40 2.86 7.23 7.58 7.89 8.16 8.40 8.59 4.0 0.2 1.40 2.86 7.38 7.64 7.89 8.09 8.26 8.39 t'-.)~
4.0 0.5 2.00 2.00 7.02 7.34 7.62 7.86 8.07 8.23 4.0 0.5 2.00 2.00 7.26 7.50 7.71 7.89 8.03 8.13 C) ......
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.00
5.00
1.33
0.80
6.95
7.09
7.23
7.34
7.49
7.56
7.70
7.75
7.88
7.90
8.01
8.00
4.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
3.00
5.00
1.33
0.80
7.25
7.44
7.46
7.61
7.65
7.77
7.80
7.89
7.92
7.97
7.98
8.00
~~
4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 7.72 7.94 8.13 8.29 8.41 8.47 4.0 5.0 11.00 0.36 8.09 8.19 8.36 8.44 8.47 8.47
5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 8.05 8.48 8.86 9.19 9.48 9.74 5.0 0.0 1.00 5.00 7.94 8.27 8.57 8.83 9.05 9.23
5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 7.46 7.83 8.16 8.44 8.69 8.90 5.0 0.2 1.50 3.33 7.56 7.85 8.10 8.32 8.50 8.64 '"tI
5.0 0.5 2.25 2.22 7.13 7.45 7.74 7.99 8.20 8.37 5.0 0.5 2.25 2.22 7.34 7.59 7.81 8.00 8.15 8.25 ~
(I)
5.0 1.0 3.50 1.43 6.99 7.27 7.53 7.74 7.93 8.07 5.0 1.0 3.50 1.43 7.27 7.49 7.68 7.84 7.96 8.02 ........
5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 7.09 7.34 7.56 7.75 7.91 8.01 5.0 2.0 6.00 0.83 7.43 7.60 7.77 7.89 7.97 8.00
5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 7.70 7.93 8.12 8.27 8.40 8.46 I 5.0 5.0 13.50 0.37 8.07 8.18 8.35 8.43 8.46 8.46
&;
C6.2.3 Penetration Analysis For Silica Sands
Various bearing capacity and shape factors are given in the literature for the analysis of
bearing capacity in silica sand. The method described in the PRACTICE text is that of
Vesic [8]. However, of particular relevance is the method proposed by Brinch Hansen
[17] which is also in common use particularly where the angle of internal friction has
been determined for plane strain conditions.
Fv =A (0.5 y' B NydySy + Po' Nq Sq dq)
where;
Ny = 1.5(Nq - 1) tan<l> Nq = e7ttanCP tan 2 (45° + <1>/2)
dy = 1 Sq = 1 + BIL sin<l>
Sy = (1 - O.4BIL) dq = 1 + 2tan<l> (1 - sin<l»2 DIB
and the maximum preload, VLo , is equal to the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, Fv,
taking into account the effect of backflow, Fo'A, and the effective weight of the soil
replaced by the spudcan, y'V, i.e.:
VLo =Fv - Fo'A + y'V
Empirical bearing capacity factors show reasonable agreement with model footings of
less than 2.0 metros diameter. However, significant disagreement has been observed in
centrifuge tests on larger size spudcans and for actual jack-up rig footings in the North
Sea for which the footing diameters ranged from 3.0 to 15.0 m, and laboratory triaxial 
values for the sand indicated values in the range of 30° to 40°.
Observed penetrations were significantly larger than the values would indicate for
both the Vesic and Brinch Hansen methods. Analyses by various researchers (Graham,
[18]; James, [19]; Kimura, [20]) suggest that reduced values be used to account for
these "scale effects" .
In view of these observations it is recommended that laboratory triaxial test values
should be reduced by 5° for the prediction of large diameter footing penetrations in
silica sands, i.e.
=
<l>design <!>triaxial - 5 °
If laboratory test data are unavailable the following design values may be applicable:
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR COHESIONLESS SiliCEOUS SOIL*
Density Soil Description <p°des. Ny NQ

Very Loose Sand 15 2.6 3.9
Loose Sand-Silt
Medium Silt
Loose Sand 20 5.4 6.4
Medium Sand-Silt
Dense Silt
Medium Sand 25 11 11
Dense Sand-Silt
Dense Sand 30 22 18
Very Dense Sand-Silt
Dense Gravel 35 48 33
Very Dense Sand
* See notes overleaf

* NOTE: "Sand-Silt" includes those soils with significant fractions of both sand and
silt. Strength values generally increase with increasing sand fractions. For
spudcans on sand the effects of cyclic loading may be to either increase or decrease
the pore water pressure. Positive excess pore water pressure will weaken the soil
and in severe cases may cause partial fluidization. Negative excess pore water
pressures may temporarily strengthen the soil. Approximate methods are available
for the assessment of excess pore water pressure development and associated
foundation settlement (Dean [20D.
The following qualifications apply:
1. Footing penetrations in a thick layer of clean silica sand are usually minimal with
the maximum diameter of the spudcan rarely coming into contact with the soil. It is
therefore not usual to consider the effects of soil backflow in this situation.
2. If various sand layers occur to 1.5 B below the footing depth an average value for <1>'
can be selected using the graph developed by Meyerhof [22] as shown in Figure
C6.4. Considering the overall inaccuracy in the prediction of footing penetration in
sand, this refinement does not generally influence the accuracy of the prediction.
3. Emphasis should be placed on the identification and analyses of potential punch-

throughs into a clay layer (or a silt layer which may behave undrained).
tel4--B·--.-tllrl
/
/
-~
-'
V
10 20 30 40 50
Angle ofintcmal friction, degrees·
Figure C6.4 : Depth of failure zone in sand

C6.2.4 Penetration Analysis For Carbonate Sands
Relatively large footing penetrations have been reported for uncemented carbonate
materials despite high laboratory friction angles (Dutt, [23]). This may be attributed to
either the high compressibility of these materials or low shear strengths due to high
voids ratio and a collapsible structure.
The leg penetration is governed by both strength and deformation characteristics of

foundation soils as noted in Commentary 6.2.1. The compressibility of carbonate sands
is relatively higher than for silica sands. Hence, greater penetrations should be
expected for carbonate sands relative to silica sands despite the similar or even higher
laboratory friction angles. This is supported by both experimental (Poulos, [24]) and
theoretical (Yeung, [25]) studies on model foundations.
The predictions of footing penetrations in carbonate sands are likely to be performed to

a lower degree of accuracy compared with those for silica sands. The conventional
method is to use the plasticity based formulation for bearing capacity of shallow
foundations in sand. However, friction angles to be used in the formulae should be
considerably smaller than laboratory values to account (in an artificial manner) for the
soil behavior.
C6.2.5 Penetration in Silts
Cyclic loads imposed in silty fine sands/silt foundations may cause liquefaction due to
the generation of excess pore water pressures. In this situation foundation settlements
would be anticipated. Conservative assessments of reduced bearing capacities and
increased settlements should be conducted as appropriate.
C6.2.6 Penetration Analysis For Layered Soils
C6.2.6.l Sgueezing of Clay
For a squeezing clay layer the resistance on the footing cannot become larger than the
resistance of the layer underneath the soft clay layer. Thus there is a limit to the
squeezing process.
C6.2.6.3 Punch-through: Dense Sand Over Soft Clay
Traditionally the bearing capacity of a footing on a thin sand layer overlying soft clay
has been computed according to the method developed by Hanna and Meyerhof [26] as
described in the PRACTICE. This method appears to provide reasonable predictions of
the ultimate resistance at the onset of punch-through, however it may overpredict the
resistance after the initiation of punch-through as the soil shear planes then approach
the vertical and the assumed modeling is then incorrect. The approximation Kstan<j> ==
3culBy' is a lower bound applicable to the onset of punch-through. The reference paper
provides more accurate data for Ks.
An alternative method is that in which a load spread is considered through the upper
sand layer, as illustrated in Figure C6.5. In this model the bearing capacity of the
foundation is assumed to be equal to the bearing capacity of the foundation projected
onto the lower layer. This method allows capacity ranges to be developed for a range of
load
spread gradients. Thus for a load spreading under a slope of l:n, the ultimate bearing
capacity of a circular foundation is given by:
Fv = FV,b- W
where;
Fv = ultimate bearing capacity of footing (with diameter B and area A at
depth D).
FV,b = ultimate bearing capacity of fictitious footing (with diameter
[B + 2H1n] and area (1 + 2H1nB)2A, at the top of the soft clay layer.
W = weight of soil "plug" in between footing and fictitious footing.
= [1 + 2H1(nB)] 2ARy'
r Dense
sand
fi,b .",
weak
, t4-- t! -----+t : l ---+t i
:... t!' ~
No backflow of soil
clay
'" t4--
iFull tl
B' ..:
backtlow of soil
Qv = Qv,b-W Qv= Qv,b-W-AI'f~
Figure C6.5 : Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - sand over clay -

load spread method
This method, using n = 3, has been recommended by Young, [27] for jack-up
foundations. However, comparison with model test data (Jacobsen, [28]; Higham, [29];
Craig, [30]) suggest a range from n = 3 to 5. Conversely, actual spudcan penetration
data are available which suggest a higher spread, i.e. smaller n values, (Baglioni, [31]).
Hence it is suggested that this method would provide reasonable, but conservative,
results if a lower bound value n = 5 be used. However, it is noted that both
observations of model test data and results of numerical analyses reveal that soil
punching failure occurs along vertical surfaces. Thus, although this method can provide
reasonable quantitative estimates on leg penetration, it may not be based on a physically
correct model.
The same comment applies to the previously referenced Hanna and Meyerhof method
which is based on failure along a truncated cone surface. This is unlike the observed
vertical shear surface. However, the ultimate resistance computed when punching shear
is initiated generally gives reasonable agreement (and is acceptably conservative)
compared with actually observed data.
It is noted that this method generally provides reasonable estimates of ultimate soil
resistance at the onset of punch-through. However, significant underpredictions of soil
resistance have been reported by Baglioni, [31]. Conversely the method appears to
overpredict soil resistance after punch-through has initiated as suggested by Craig, [32].
Craig, [30] observed in centrifuge model tests that a sand plug underneath the spudcan
is pushed with relatively little lateral deformation into the underlying clay for prototype
offshore conditions. It is suggested that account be taken of the frictional resistance on
this sand plug when penetrating the clay.
C6.2.7 Summary
The various soil failure mechanisms considered in this section are illustrated in Figure
C6.6.
The current status on analytical methods for punch-through (Section C6.2.6) is that the
widely used methods, discussed above, (i.e. the load spread method and the Hanna and
Meyerhof method) show (different) discrepancies with observed data. However, both
methods allow prediction of a lower bound resistance at the initiation of punch-through.
A) "Conventional" bearing capacity failure: B) "Conventional" bearing capacity failure:

unifonn soils. layered soils.
C) Squeezing. D) Punch-through
E) Punch - through + conventional bearing F) Punch - through + Squeezing

capacity failure
Figure C6.6 : Foundation bearing failure modes

C6.3 FOUNDATION STABILITY ASSESSMENT
C6.3.3/4 Bearing capacity for inclined loading
Introduction
Fonnulae for combined vertical (PVH, FvHM ), horizontal (PH, FHM) and moment (PM)
capacity on shallow foundations in unifonn soils have been suggested by various
researchers. Those due to Vesic [8] and Brinch Hansen [17] are commonly used for
offshore applications and are included in API RP2A [33] and DNV [34] guidelines
respectively. It should be noted that the equations are applicable to shallow
penetrations. Any contribution of horizontal soil resistance on the embedded legs is
ignored. In case of deep penetrations the horizontal resistance may be significant,
especially when the jack-up leg comprises a single tubular or box section or when the
spudcan is provided with skirts around the can perimeter.
The following section is an overview of the recommended criteria for spudcan

foundations.
It is noted that the analytical procedures apply to a flat footing in which all
load/resistance is transmitted through its base. The influence of horizontal resistance on
vertical areas (e.g. footing cone or vertical surfaces above the base) can either be
assessed separately or ignored. Reasons for discluding the latter resistance component
are discussed below.
1. Uncertainty of the contact area between the spudcan and soil due to the shape of the
foundations or due to removal of foundation material by scour.
2. Soil strengths and stiffnesses may be significantly reduced as a result of material
remolding during unit installation.
3. The ultimate shear resistance along the foundation base is generally mobilized at a
significantly smaller displacement than that required to mobilize the passive soil
resistance.
It is noted that the combined loading problem is generally solved in a simplistic and
generally conservative manner. For layered soil conditions and/or complex footing
configurations it may be helpful to assess the ultimate foundation capacity using finite
element techniques. Such analyses are particularly relevant for the assessment of
displacements associated with combined loads (level 3 analyses).
The equations of Sections 6.3.3.1 and 6.3.3.2 may be used to calculate the bearing
capacity of the soil beneath the spudcan under inclined loading. The expressions
provide correlation between the vertical soil bearing capacity the associated horizontal
soil bearing capacity. In this case the effect of backflow and spudcan buoyancy shall be
included in the spudcan loading.
The total vertical load during stonn conditions may comprise:

dead, live and environmental loads including associated P-Ll effects
backflow
spudcan buoyancy (due to weight of soil displaced by the spudcan)
Unifonn Clay
Clay pinned foundation ~:
A comparison of the Vesic [8] and Brinch Hansen [17] criteria for surface footings in
clay shows that the latter are slightly more conservative than the fonner (i.e. the Brinch
Hansen results show a reduced capacity compared with those given by the Vesic
approach). The Brinch Hansen criteria appear to provide a lower bound to finite
element analysis results and (model) test data reported by Noble Denton [lOb] and by
Santa Maria [35].
The relationship between maximum vertical capacity (FVH) and horizontal soil capacity
(FH) for a circular surface footing in clay is graphically presented in Figure C6.7. The
graph has been non-dimensionalized by dividing FVH and FH by the maximum vertical
soil capacity Fvmax (which occurs when FH = 0). Also shown is a curve for deep
footings where DIB;;:::2.5.
For spudcans founded on overconsolidated clay (OCR;;::: 4), cyclic degradati<?n may
reduce the horizontal bearing capacity by a factor of 0.3, i.e. the horizontal bearing
capacity calculated from static soils properties should be multiplied by a reduction
factor:
Horizontal bearing capacity reduction factor =0.7
For these materials the horizontal and vertical soil stiffnesses calculated from static soil
properties may be multiplied by factors of 1.25 and 3 to 8 as a result of cyclic effects
(Anderson [36]).
T D
1
~
~•••• 1:-..
Brinm Banscn~ ~
DNV ~4]
...~
"'\ ~
.6
, \
.4
"Deep": Surtace
(*~2~
.2 ,
,
,,
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 ~
Figure C6.7 : Verticallhorizontalload envelopes for footings in clay

Clay foundation with moment fixity CFM > 0):
The FvWFH envelope reduces in size if an overturning moment is applied in addition to

horizontal and/or vertical loading. Reference is made to Brinch Hansen [17] or to DNV
[34]. Some guidance can also be obtained from Santa Maria [35].
II
Uniform Sand
Pinned sand foundation <FM.=..Q1
Figure C6.8 shows a comparison of Vesic, [8] (=API RP2A, [33]) and Brinch Hansen,
[17] (= DNV, [34]) criteria for surface footings on sand with test results reported by
Noble Denton [lOb]. These data suggest that the Vesic criteria provide a reasonable
lower bound to the test data for FHIFVH ratios less than 0.3. (It is noted that Tan [39]
reported tests results and analysis data which indicate higher soil resistances than those
due to Vesic and Brinch Hansen.)
The relations between FVHIFVmax and FHIFVmax for a circular surface footing and for a
deep footing in sand are graphically presented in Figure C6.9. The graph for surface
footings can be used to make a lower bound estimate of FvWFH relations at any depth.
Based on the above studies it is recommended to adopt the Vesic criteria for spudcan
analysis in sands.
Sand foundation with moment fixity CFM > 0):

The FvWFH envelope reduces in size if an overturning moment is simultaneously
applied. Reference is made to Vesic [8] and API RP2A [33] for details on the
computation procedure. Further guidance can be obtained from Tan [39].
C6.3.3/4
FVH 1.0
-
FvlllOX
-+
O.
• Test data various researchers
0.8 •• (primarily strip footings)
- DNV criteria (all footings)
0.7
API criteria (strips lower bOllldJ
[] circular footings upper bound)
0.6
0.5 •
0.4
0.3 •
0.2
••
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 09 1.0
FH
F;ma"!'
Figure C6.8 : Foundation combined verticallhorizontalloading on sand

- comparison of design criteria and observed data
1
D
1
F t 1.0 ~--r---.-----'---.----,
F~ ~~---_ ' ____

O.S ~--+----"""""",-+--"-""<"-_-I_- , , - - + - - - 1
Surfa ~
'-"""" "decp· Vesic [SJ
0.6 t----+---t-~\_+_--+"'"t-,- I APIRP 2A [33]
(D =oo)
0.4 t----t---t---tl---+-/-:/'--I
I) }
0.2
,//
t----t---t/~~_l:_r....:.~.- + - - 1
o~~~,,_-,~~_,,·_··_··_··~-·_··_--_~·~_~_~ ~~
o 0.Q4 0.06 0.12 0.16 0.20 FVmax
Figure C6.9 : Verticallhorizontalload envelopes for footings in sand

C6.3.3/4 Clay & Sand Foundations with moment fixity (FM2:...ffi
Section 6.3.4.6 describes three methods by which fixity may be included in the analysis.
The intennediate method, using linear fixity, is an approach that was not previously
encompassed. It is now included as the more detailed methods are not readily available
to most analysts. It must however be noted that the linear rotational stiffness must be
selected with care to ensure that wave force cancellation effects do not drive the
resulting DAF's. Refer to C7.4.
Elastic Spring Stiffnesses - Sand and Clay

The elastic stiffness factors are calculated assuming full contact of the spudcan with the
seabed. If the vertical load is insufficient to maintain full contact as the moment
increases then reduced stiffnesses should be used. The stiffness factors are derived for
a homogeneous, linear, isotropic soil. Choice of the appropriate shear modulus should
take into account the expected stress level and strain amplitude.
Selection of Shear Modulus, G, in clay

When determining the secant rotational stiffness, K3, the shear modulus may be taken
as G =IrCu. In extreme response analysis, it is recommended that the following be used:
G/c u = 50 for overconsolidated clays, with an overconsolidation ratio greater
than 10.
G/c u = 100 for overconsolidated clays, with an overconsolidation ratio between
4 and 10.
G/c u = 200 for nonnally consolidated clays, with an overconsolidation ratio less
than 4.
It is clear that lower Ir values may develop in certain regions of the soil. However, the
rotational stiffness is an integrated result of near and far field soil stiffness.
Furthennore, the secant stiffness will be reduced by a stiffness reduction factor, fro The
recommended Ir values are therefore considered reasonably conservative.
For applications involving small strain beneath the spudcan, such as in a structural
fatigue analysis, a higher Ir should be used. Typical Ir values for small strains may
range from the order of 200-400 for overconsolidated clays to 800-1000 for nonnally
consolidated clays according to Wroth [40] and Andersen [36].
Selection of Shear Modulus in Sand

For calculating the soil stiffness during extreme loading conditions the following
empirical expressions for shear moduli for vertical (Oy), horizontal (Gh ) and rotational
loading (Gr) may be used, Dean [41]:
Gv = 36,600 + 24.9 (VuJA)
Gh = 1,100 + 5.6 (VuJA)
Gr = 4,100 + 11.5 (VuJA)
where Gv, Gh and Gr are in kN/m 2, VLo is the maximum preload applied to the
foundation by the spudcan in kN and A is the plan cross sectional area in m2 • The
above expressions have been deduced from the re:-evaluation of load excursions
perfonned in centrifuge tests. A total of 522 load excursions were examined, 111 from
11 centrifuge tests perfonned on loose sand, 316 from 18 medium dense sand tests and
96 from 6 dense sand tests. Recent work perfonned by Dean [42], in which
unpublished data from centrifuge tests were inspected resulted in the following
expressions for dense sand:
G v = 1,500 (VuJA)O.55
Gh = 150 (VuJA)O.55
Gr = 600 (VuJA)O.55
where G v , G h , G r and VuJA are in kN/m2 •
For rotational stiffness, the Dean [42] fonnulation of Gr is recommended. I

Dean's inspections of the loose sands show a lower stiffness than for dense sand.
Preliminary analyses have indicated that the elastic shear modulus for loose sand might
be based upon the same expression as for dense sand, but reduced using a factor f( e)
where:
(2.973- e)2
fCe) =
(1+ e)
where e is the voids ratio. The above expressions may be seen in Hardin [43]. Using
this expression a shear modulus, G Loose, for a loose sand would be related to the
corresponding shear modulus GDense, for dense sand by:
G"", = Gn- {:i~:;}

where;
fCe.) = value of fCe) for loose sand
fCeD) value of fCe) for dense sand
Effect of Embedment of the Spudcan on the Elastic Spring Stiffness

A study of the effect of embedment of flat plate and conical type footings has been
performed by Bell [42] to demonstrate the effect of penetration depth on the
translational and rotational spring stiffnesses. In order to take the embedment into
account the elastic spring stiffness derived from the Boussinesq equations may be
multiplied by the depth factor~. The results of the study are summarized in the table
below. In the table ~l' ~ and ~ represent the depth factors for the vertical spring
stiffness, horizontal spring stiffness and the rotational spring stiffness, respectively.
Case 1 represents an open hole above the spudcan, case 2 a back-filled hole.
~l ~ ~3
DIR Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
0.5 1.15 1.21 1.33 1.49 1.28 1.64
1.0 1.28 1.41 1.44 1.71 1.43 2.05
2.0 1.42 1.70 1.51 1.92 1.51 2.31
4.0 1.59 2.00 1.61 2.06 1.57 2.41
A voidance of numerical problems

An analysis in which the spudcan is considered as pinned to the seabed is equivalent to
the assumption that KI and K2 are infinite and K3 is zero. In any analysis taking into
account foundation fixity CK3 non-zero) it is recommended that the effects of KI and K2
are considered, as they will tend to decrease the sway stiffness, and hence increase the
natural period and second order effects. As a first approximation elastic springs are
recommended. In some instances the vertical deformations resulting from the inclusion
of such springs may be large, and could compromise the numerical accuracy of the
solution. A possible method of reducing the absolute value of the deflections is given
overleaf.
Load Load
V~ r----------r------------- VLo~--------~-------------
V mox 1--------+1.
VJJ
Leeward leg displacement Wmdwardleg displacement
Figure C6.1O : Vertical load-displacement curves for leeward and

windward legs
With reference to Figure C6.1O, consider the windward and leeward legs as follows:
Leeward leg Windward leg

Vmax= VO+VE V min = Vo - V E
where~
Vo = Vertical reaction due to dead load
VE = Vertical reaction due to environmental load (and any change from the
variable load level used in computing V0)
The deflection due to environmental load alone ~d can be derived as:

~d ~d =
The modified vertical spring stiffness K* y is then:
Vn +VE VO-VE
K*y = Ky K*y = Ky
VE VE
where;
Kv = KI from the PRACTICE
= 2GD/(I-v)
For further information regarding foundation stiffness evaluation reference should be

made to Bell, [44].
C6.4 OTHER ASPECTS OF JACK-UP UNIT FOUNDATION PERFORMANCE
C6.4.1 Leaning Instability

A lower bound estimate of the leaning stability can be perfonned using the theory of
Hambly [45]. However, it should be recognized that such estimates have proven to be
generally conservative due to the omission of beneficial effects such as spudcan fixity
and lateral soil resistance on the legs.
The potential for jack-up unit leaning instability may largely be discounted if
appropriate installation procedures are adopted.
C6.4.2 Footprint Considerations

Installing a jack-up with its spudcans near or adjacent to existing footprints, or zones of
weaker material (naturally infilled spudcan footprints) may induce soil failure.
Mathematical models are available for the evaluation of ground stability in such
situations and, in particular, finite element techniques are becoming more widely used.
It is not possible to advise on a minimum acceptable distance between the proposed

spudcan locations and existing footprints as this will depend on several parameters.
These parameters include the soil conditions, the depth and configuration of the
footprints, the degree of soil backfill during and after spudcan removal, the elapsed time
since the last installation, the spudcan geometry and foundation loading.
As a general guideline it is usually acceptable for a spudcan to be installed at a

minimum distance (from the edge of the bearing area to the edge of the footprint) of one
diameter measured at the spudcan bearing area. However, in soft clay conditions, with
consequentially deep footing penetrations, the situation may be complicated by the fact
that the footprints may have larger diameters than the spudcans.
Also in dense sand or stiff clay conditions, where shallow footprints are unlikely to
influence the integrity of the spudcan foundations, the above guideline may be
conservati ve.
C6.4.3 Scour
The seabed is susceptible to scour when the shear stresses induced by fluid flow exceed
a certain value and/or when turbulent intensity of the flow is sufficiently large to lift
individual grains and entrain these in the flow. Both wave action and currents can
induce scour although in deep water, the effect of wave action on seabed scour is
negligible.
The following parameters are important for the assessment of scour potential:
a) Seabed material - size, shape, density and cohesion

b) Flow conditions - current velocity, wave-induced oscillatory velocities
interaction of waves and currents
c) Shape, size and penetration of jack-up footing.
Methods are available to determine whether significant scour is likely under waves and
currents. These generally proceed by considering the velocities near the seabed and by
calculation of the shear stresses. Guidance is given with regard to the assessment of
scour potential in the US NCEL [46] Marine Geotechnical Engineering Handbook.
C6.4.4 Seafloor instability
Seafloor instability may be caused by a number of mechanisms and where the potential
for unstable ground conditions is recognized it is recommended that expert local advise
is obtained.
In areas where liquefaction is known to be possible its potential must be assessed.

Liquefaction, or cyclic mobility, occurs when the cyclic stresses within the soils cause a
progressive build up of pore pressure. The pore pressure within the profile may build
up to a stage where it becomes equal to the initial average vertical effective stress.
Foundation failure may result depending on the location and extent of pore pressure
developed in the soil. The rate and degree of pore pressure build up will depend on
three factors:
a) The loading characteristics; that is, the amplitude, period and durations of the
different cyclic loading components
b) The cyclic characteristics of the soil deposits
c) The drainage and compressibility of the strata comprising the soil profile.
The cyclic loads may be induced by environmental or mechanical means, or by the

oscillatory ground accelerations imposed during earthquake conditions.
If appropriate soil conditions prevail, the potential for cyclic mobility should be
considered for a wide variety of load cases. Of particular interest is the windward
footing during storm conditions, where reduced vertical load and increased horizontal
load may theoretically induce lateral sliding or bearing failure.
C6.4.6 Spudcan - pile interaction
Where it is recognized that jack-up footings may adversely effect the piles of an
adjacent structure it will be necessary to assess the implications. Procedures such as
that proposed by Siciliano [47] may be used for deeply embedded footings in clay.
Otherwise, if adequate soil data is available, mathematical modeling techniques, such as
finite element modeling, could be used to assess the significance of the spudcan-pile
interaction.
au = Adhesion.
A = Spudcan effective bearing area.
B = Effective spudcan diameter at uppermost part of bearing area in contact with the
=
soil (for rectangular footing B width).
B' = Increased effective spudcan diameter -load spread method.
Cu = Undrained cohesive shear strength.
Cui = Undrained cohesive shear strength at spudcan tip.
Cum = Undrained cohesive shear strength at mudline.
Cuo = Undrained cohesive shear strength at max bearing area.
d = Critical depth of failure below spudcan in sand.
dq = Bearing capacity factor = 1 + 2tanq,(1- sinq,i DIB.
ely = =
Bearing capacity factor 1.
D = Distance from mudline to spudcan maximum bearing area.
e = Voids ratio.
e(e) = Voids ratio factor.
feed = Voids ratio factor for loose sand.
feeD) = Voids ratio factor for dense sand.
FH = Horizontal foundation capacity (envelope).
FM = Foundation moment capacity (envelope).
Fo' = Effective overburden pressure due to backfill at depth of the uppermost part of
the bearing area.
Fy = Vertical foundation capacity.
FY.b = Vertical bearing capacity of fictitious footing on the surface of the lower
(bottom) clay layer with no backfill.
F YH = Vertical foundation capacity when horizontal load is present.
Fymax = Maximum vertical soil resistance (occurs when FH 0).=
G = Shear modulus.
Gy = Shear modulus for vertical loading.
Gh = Shear modulus for horizontal loading.
Gr = Shear modulus for momentlrotationalloading.
GLoose = Shear modulus for loose sand.
GDense = Shear modulus for dense sand.
H = Distance from spudcan maximum bearing area to weak strata below.
Ir = Coefficient relating undrained shear strength to shear modulus.
I = Height of soil column above spudcan.
ks = Coefficient of punching shear.
kv = Vertical foundation stiffness (= KI).
K 1,K2,K3 = Vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffness.
~I = Stiffness factor on vertical stiffness to account for embedment.
~2 = Stiffness factor on horizontal stiffness to account for embedment.
~ = Stiffness factor on rotational stiffness to account for embedment.
K*v = Modified vertical foundation stiffness.
L = =
Foundation length, for circular foundation L B.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS CONTINUED ...

n = =
Inverse slope of load spreading (slope of spread 1:n).
N = Stability factor.
,
Nc = Alternative bearing capacity factor for normally consolidated clays.
Nq = =
Bearing capacity factor e1ttan4Ptan 2( 45 + q,/2).
Ny = Bearing capacity factor
= 2(Nq + 1) tanq, for Vesic analysis [8]
= 1.5(Nq - 1) tanq, for Brinch Hansen analysis [17].
OCR = Over consolidation ratio.
Po' = Effective overburden pressure at spudcan base level (i.e. depth of maximum
bearing area).
Qv = Factored vertical leg reaction.
QH = Factored horizontal leg reaction.
R = B/2.
Sq = Bearing capacity shape factor = 1 + (B1L)tanq,.
sy = =
Bearing capacity shape factor (1 - O.4BIL).
(= 0.6 for circular footing under pure vertical load).
T = Thickness of weak clay layer underneath spudcan.
V = Embedded spudcan volume.
VD = Vertical reaction due to dead load.
VE = Vertical reaction due to environmental load (and any change from the variable
load level used in computing VD).
VLo = Maximum vertical foundation load during preloading.
Vmax = Maximum footing reaction on leeward leg.
Vmin = Minimum footing reaction on windward leg.
W = =
Weight of soil plug (load spread method) [1 + 2H1(nB)] 2ARy'.
z = Vertical foundation settlement for conventional bearing capacity analysis.
zu = Vertical displacement required to mobilize capacity Fv.
a = Roughness factor = au/c u.

p The equivalent cone angle of the spudcan.
~d = Vertical deflection due to environmental load.
y' = Submerged unit weight of soil.
q, = Angle of internal friction for sand - degrees.
q,' = Angle of internal friction for sand - degrees, dependent on d/B ratio.
v Poisson's ratio.
p Rate of increase of cohesive shear strength with depth.
1 Meyerhof G.G. (1972), "Stability of Slurry Trench Cuts in Saturated Clay", Proceedings of
the Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures, ASCE,
pp. 1451-1466.
2 Britto A.M., Kusakabe, Osanu (1983) "Stability of Axisymmetric Excavations in Clays",

Journal of Geotechnical Eng., Vol 109, No.5.
3 Young A.G., Rernmes B.D., Meyer B.J., (1984) "Foundation Performance of Offshore
Jack-Up Drilling Rigs" Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No.7, pp. 841-859.
4 Skempton A.W. (1951), "The Bearing Capacity of Clays", Building Research Congress.
5 Davis E.H., Booker J.R., (1973), "The Effect of Increasing Strength with Depth on the
Bearing Capacity of Clays", Geotechnique Vol. 23, No.4, pp. 551-563.
6 Salencon J., Matar M., (1982), "Capacite portante des Foundations superficielles
circulaires", Journal de Mecanique theorique et applique, Vol. 1, No.2, pp. 237-267.
7 Houlsby G.T., Wroth C.P., (1983), "Calculation of Stresses on Shallow Penetrometers and
Footings", Proc. IUTAM Symp. on Seabed Mechanics, Newcastle, pp. 107-112.
8 Vesic A.S., (1975), "Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations", Foundation Engineering

Handbook (H.F. Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang, eds.), 121-147, Van Nostrand.
9 Endley, S.N., Rapoport, V., Thompson, P.J., and Baglioni, V.P. (1981), "Prediction of
Jack-up rig Footing Penetration", OTC, Houston, OTC 4144.
lOa Noble Denton & Associates (1987), "Foundation Fixity of Jack-up Units, Joint Industry
Study", Volumes I, II.
lOb Noble Denton & Associates (1988), "Foundation Fixity of Jack-up Units, Joint Industry
Study, Extra work", Volume ill.
11 Houlsby G.T., Wroth C.P., (1982), "Determination of undrained strengths by cone

penetration tests", Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing
/ Amsterdam.
12 Houlsby G.T., Wroth C.P., (1982), "Direct Solution of Plasticity Problems in Soils by the
Method of Characteristics", Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton, Canada.
13 Houlsby G.T., (1982), "Theoretical Analysis of the Fall Cone Test" Geotechnique 32, No.
2, 111-118.
14 Koumoto T., Kaku K. (1982), "Three-Dimensional Analysis of Static Cone Penetration"

Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration Testing, Amsterdam.
15 Houlsby G.T. (1991), "Bearing Capacity Factors for Conical Footings on Clay - Comments
on Derivation of Factors", presented to Jack-Up Working Group Foundations Sub-
Committee, London.
16 Andersen K.H. (1988), "A Review of Soft Clay under Static and Cyclic Loading", Invited
lecture, International Conference on Engineering Problems of Regional Soils, Being,
China.17Brinch Hansen J., (1970) "A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing
Capacity", Bulletin No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Inst., Copenhagen.
18 Graham J., Stuart J.G. (1971), "Scale and Boundary Effects in Foundation Analysis",
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SMll,
November, pp. 1533-1548.
19 James RG., Tanaka H. (1984), "An Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of footings under
Eccentric and Inclined Loading in Sand in a Geotechnical Centrifuge", Proc. Symp. Recent
Advances in Geotechnical Centrifuge Modelling, University of California, Davis, pp. 88-
115.
20 Kimura T., Kusakabe 0., and Saitoh K. (1985), "Geotechnical Model Tests of Bearing
Capacity Problems in Centrifuge", Geotechnique, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 33-45.
21 Dean E.T.R (1991), "Some Potential Approximate Methods for the Preliminary Estimation
of Excess Pore Water Pressures and Settlement-Time Curves for Submerged Foundations
subjected to Time Dependent Loading", Cambridge University Engineering Department,
CUEDID-SoilsffR240.
22 Meyerhof G.G. (1984), "An Investigation of the Bearing Capacity of Shallow Footings on
Dry Sand", Proceedings 2nd ICSMFE, Rotterdam.
23 Dutt RN., Ingram W.R (1988), "Bearing Capacity of Jack-up Footings in Carbonate
granular Sediments", Proceedings of the International Conference on Calcareous
Sediments, Perth, pp. 291-296.
24 Poulos H.G., Chua E.W. (1985), "Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Calcareous Sand",
Proceedings 11th ICSMFE, San Francisco, Vol. 3, pp. 1619- 1622.
25 Yeung S.K., Carter J.P. (1989), "An Assessment of the Bearing Capacity of Calcareous and
Silica Sands", International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, Vol. 13, pp. 19-26.
26 Hanna A.M., Meyerhof G.G. (1980), "Design Charts for Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Foundations on Sand Overlying Soft Clay", Canadian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 17.
27 Young A.G., Focht J.A. Jr. (1981), "Subsurface Hazards Affect Mobile Jack-up Rig
Operations", Sounding, McClelland Engineers Inc., Houston, Texas, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 4-9.
28 Jacobsen M., Christensen K.V., Sorensen C.S. (1977), "Gennemlokning of Tynde Sandlag
(Penetration of Thin Sand Layers)", Vag-och Vattenbyggaren 8-9, Sweden.
29 Higham M.D. (1984), "Models of Jack-up Rig Foundations:", M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Manchester.
30 Craig W.H., Chua K. (1990), "Deep Penetration of Spudcan Foundations on Sand and
Clay", Geotechnique, VoL 40, No.4, pp. 541-556.
31 Baglioni V.P., Chow G.S. Endley S.N. (1982) "Jack-up Rig Foundation Stability in
Straified Soil Profiles", Proceedings, 14th OTC, Houston, OTC 4408.
32 Craig W.H., Higham M.D. (1985), "The Applications of Centrifugal Modelling to the
Design of Jack-up rig Foundations". Proceedings Offshore Site Investigation Conference,
VoL 3. ISBN 0-86010-668-3.
33 API RP2A (1989), "API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms", API Recommended Practice 2A (RP2A) 18th Edition,
Washington.
34 Det Norske Veritas (1977), "Rules for the Design and Inspection of Offshore Structures,
Appendix F, Foundations", H'vik, Reprint with corrections (1980).
35 Santa Maria P.E.L. de (1988), "Behavior of Footings for Offshore Structures under
Combined Loads", Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University.
36 Andersen K.H. (1992), "Cyclic effects on Bearing Capacity and Stiffness for a Jack-up
Platform on Clay", NGI Oslo report 913012-1, Rev 1.
37 Brekke J.N., Murff J.D., Lamb W.e. (1989) "Calibration of Jackup Leg Foundation Model
Using Full-Scale Structural Measurements", Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, (OTC 6127).
38 Matlock H. (1970), "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay",
39 Tan F.S.e. (1990), "Centrifuge and Theoretical Modelling of Conical Footings in Sand",
Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University.
40 Wroth et al. (1979), "A Review of the Engineering Properties of Soils with Particular
Reference to the Shear Modulus", Cambridge University Engineering Department. Report
No 1523/84.1SM049/84.
41 Dean et aL (1992a), "A New Procedure for Assessing Fixity of Spudcans on Sand", Andrew
N Schofield and Associates Ltd., Cambridge, for Joint Industry Jack-Up Committee.
42 Dean et aL (1992b), "A New Procedure for Assessing Fixity of Spudcans on Sand - Further
Notes", Andrew N Schofield and Associates Ltd., Cambridge, for Joint Industry Jack-Up
Committee.
43 Hardin B.O., and Dmevich V.P. (1972), "Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design
Equations and Curves", J. Soil Mech. Foundation Division, ASCE Vol 98, SM7, 667-692
44 Bell R.W. (1991), "The Analysis of Offshore Foundations Subjected to Combined

Loading", MSc. Thesis presented to the University of Oxford.
45 Hambly E.C. (1985), "Punch-through Instability of Jack-up on Seabed", Journal of

Geotechn. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 111, No.4.
46 US NCEL (1985), "Handbook for Marine Geotechnical Engineering". Deep Ocean

Technology, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA 93043.
47 Siciliano R.J., Hamilton J.M., Murff J.D. (1990), "Effect of Jackup Spudcans on Piles",
48 Dean, et al. (1995), "Centrifuge Modelling of 3-Leg Jackups with Non-Skirted and Skirtedl
Spuds on Partially Drained Sand", Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
(OTC 7839).
49 Wong P.C. and Murff J.D. (1994),"Dynamic Analysis of Jack-up Rigs Using Advancedl
Foundation Models", Proceedings OMAE, Houston, paper 94-1315
50 Svano and Tjelta (1993),"Skirted Spudcans - Extending Operational Depth and bnproving
Performance", 4th City University Jack-up Platform Conference, London.
I
51 Baerheim (1993),"Structural Effects of Foundation Fixity on a Large Jack-up", 4th Cityl
University Jack-up Platform Conference, London.
52 Van Langen and Hospers (1993),"Theoretical Model for Determining Rotational Behaviorl
of Spudcans", Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, (OTC 7302).
C.7 COMMENTARY TO CALCULATION METHODS - DETERMINATION OF
RESPONSES
C7.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this Section is to provide documentation of the considerations

applied to the recommendations given in the Recommended Practice (pRACTICE)
concerning the determination of extreme responses. The PRACTICE recommends that
extreme response determination should always follow a procedure which always
considers the potential dynamic magnification of the jack-up's behavior.
C7.2 QUASI-STATIC EXTREME RESPONSE WITH INERTIAL LOAD SET
Section 7.2 of the PRACTICE recommends that quasi-static responses are normally
determined by stepping the design wave through the structure. The extreme response is
obtained by combining the quasi-static wave-current loading with wind loads, dead
loads, etc., and an inertial loadset to represent the loading due to dynamic response.
This method approximates the random nature of wave excitation and implicitly assumes
that the extreme response is uniquely related to the occurrence of the extreme wave.
As an alternative to the deterministic quasi-static design wave analysis a probabilistic

quasi-static random wave analysis may be used. This procedure is identical to a random
dynamic analysis procedure with the dynamic effects suppressed. Where software
permits, suppression may be achieved by setting all jack-up vibrational masses to zero;
see Section 7.3 of the PRACTICE. The significant wave height used for the random
wave analysis should include a water depth correction as shown on Section 3.5.1 of the
PRACTICE.
C7.3 CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE DYNAMIC RESPONSE
The following considerations are relevant:

a) The highest natural period of the jack-up, in absolute terms, in relation to the
environmental excitation periods.
For the present purpose the highest natural period (Tn) is used as the single indicator
representing the properties of the structural system for the given application.
The environmental excitation is due to sea waves and may contain energy at periods
in the range 2-3 to some 20 seconds. The energy content in the wave spectrum at
the lower end of this period range is controlled by wave saturation and is
independent of the geographical location. Experience has shown, and theoretical
calculations support, that the dynamic magnification may be neglected if the highest
natural period does not exceed 2.5 seconds.
The extent of the upper end of the period range, and its energy content, varies
significantly with the geographic location, an important indicator being the peak
period (Tp) of the wave spectrum of the extreme sea state. If Tn > 0.5 Tp the
dynamic behavior becomes increasingly significant and complex, which always
demands an appropriate dynamic analysis. Tn may be determined in accordance
with Section 7.3.5 of the PRACTICE. The derivation of the equations is given in
Appendix C7.A. The derivation of Tn and Tp are therefore critical to the dynamic
analysis. Considerations for the calculation of Tn and Tp are given in Section C7.4.
b) The magnitude of the dynamic magnification, relative to the quasi-static response.
Engineering calculations are subject to inherent (in)accuracy as a result of

uncertainties/inaccuracies in calculation methods and input data. Therefore, if the
magnitude of the dynamic contribution remains smaller than some 5%, it may be
considered to be covered by the overall margins included in the engineering
assessment criteria in Section 8 of the PRACTICE, without explicitly quantifying
and including the dynamic effect. For this evaluation, the magnitude of the dynamic
contribution may be estimated by the Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) of an
idealized single degree-of-freedom system in accordance with Section 7.3.6.1 of the
PRACTICE. If the DAF < 1.05, dynamic magnification may be neglected.
c) As the dynamic responses to periodic and random excitations can be significantly

different, the random nature should (where possible) be retained in the modeling of
the excitation. The simplified method described in Section 7.3.6.1 implicitly
assumes periodic excitation.
C7.3.7 Free surface corrections for frequency domain spectral wave load analysis
When using frequency domain spectral techniques, the wave forces are evaluated using
linear kinematics up to the mean water level only. Thus the force in the wave crests
may be underestimated. The underestimation is perhaps further compounded by the
drag force linearization. To account primarily for the effects if inundation, but also
partially to correct any errors in the drag linearization, empirical factors (FSE's) may be
derived to adjust the wave induced force and overturning moment obtained from a
frequency domain spectral analysis. By way of an example, the maximum wave force
and overturning moment on a pile group (representing jack-up legs) and accounting for
free surface effects and drag force non-linearity, have been compared with the wave
load on the same pie group when ignoring the sea surface variability and using
linearized drag force. This yields separate FSE's for shear and overturning moment
which may be used to make an initial correction for the above effects. Such factors are
dependent on the kinematic stretching algorithm assumed. Using Wheeler stretching
for a drag-dominated jack-up of typical size gives:
FSEs .fIT, + ~}
{I
2 2d
FSEr
= .fIT,{1+~}2
2 2d
where;
FSEs = the base shear correction factor
FSET = the overturning moment correction factor
d water depth
H = the most probable maximum wave height (Hmax or Hmpm)
Similar expressions may be derived for different wave stretching algorithms.

C7.3.7 For a jack-up subjected to wave and current loading these factors should be used to
scale the MPM responses prior to combination with the mean (wind) response to form
MPME.
C7.4 SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE EXCITATION PERIOD
Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.6, 7.3.7 and 7.4 of the PRACTICE require that an appropriate
selection of excitation period is made. In making the selection consideration should be
given to the position of the natural period(s) in relation to the cancellation and
reinforcement points in the global wave loading of the jack-up which is important for
the magnitude of any dynamic wave magnification. Cancellations and reinforcements
in global loading are due to spatial separation of the wave load attracting legs and may
be different for different wave directions. The global loading may be characterized by
the total horizontal wave loading or overturning moment; cancellation and
reinforcement of points for these may appear at slightly different wave periods.
Figure C7.1 presents the periods at which first and second cancellations and
reinforcements occur in the total wave loading. It is valid for the main wave directions
of 3 and 4 -legged jack-ups in water depths exceeding 30m.
The calculation of natural period(s) is subject to uncertainty as a result of uncertainty in

the parameters affecting the natural period. In order to avoid the possibility of under-
conservative dynamic amplification factors, it is important to investigate the
relationship between the jack-up natural period and the cancellation and reinforcement
points in the transfer functions relating wave height to base shear and overturning
moment [1]. The range of possible natural period(s) should be bracketed and compared
with the relevant cancellation/reinforcement points in the global wave loading. The
natural period(s) used in the dynamic analysis should be selected such that a realistic
but conservative value of the dynamic response is obtained for the particular application
envisaged, avoiding maximum dynamic amplification to coincide with minimum
environmental loading. Figure C7.1 may be used for a first evaluation of the position of
the calculated natural period(s), but it is recommended that the definitive selection of
natural period(s) be based on the shape of the global horizontal wave loading (base
shear) and overturning moment transfer functions calculated for the actual application
under consideration.
When the natural period occurs at a cancellation point in the transfer functions, the
mass or stiffness should be adjusted in a logical manner to move the natural period
away from the cancellation point.
If the analysis is for pinned footings with maximum hull mass, then the adjustment
should be made by reducing the hull mass (within the normal range) and/or by
introducing a degree of rotational fixity at the seabed.
If the analysis is for a case with footing moment fixity, then the adjustment would most
logically be made by varying the degree of rotational fixity at the seabed.
To minimise cancellation effects, it is suggested that the dynamic analysis may be
carried out for a single wave heading along an axis which is neither parallel nor normal
to a leg line. Thus, for a 3-legged unit with equilateral leg positions and a single bow
leg, suitable analysis headings would be with the environment approaching from
C7.4 approximately 15° or 45° off the bow. The dynamic amplification factors (DAP's)
should be determined for one, or both, of these headings, with suitably adjusted natural
period. The DAP's (or more conservative DAP's) may then be applied to the final
quasi-static analysis for all headings and hull weight cases with, when applicable, non-
linear fixity iteration according to Section 6.3.4.1 of the Practice.
C7.5 METHODS FOR DIRECT DETERMINATION OF THE DYNAMIC RESPONSES
Section 7.3.7 of the PRACTICE outlines some of the considerations which are relevant
to direct methods for determining the dynamic responses. Appendix C7.B provides
further details of appropriate methodologies, together with flowcharts indicating their
implementation. An overview of the applicability of various modeling combinations is
given in Table C7.1 (overleaf).
For applications incorporating linearised foundation fixity in the dynamic analysis, the
methodology of Appendix C7.B.2.1 is recommended using the time domain approach
per Appendix C7.B.l.2.
For applications incorporating non-linear foundation fixity in the dynamic analysis, the
methodology needs to be selected with care, to ensure stable results. When the analysis
is used solely to determine DAP's it is probable that a time domain simulation of
appropriate duration using the approach per Appendix C7.B.l.2 will be sufficient with
the extremes determined using the methodology of Appendix C7.B.2.l.
However, if the analysis is to be used to directly determine the extremes of other
responses, then the methodology of Appendix C7.B.2.4 is recommended using the time
domain approach per Appendix C7.B.l.2. This is because the results from the non-
inear fixity analysis (where non-linear foundation response occurs) are dependent upon
the load history experienced by the foundations. Consequently, the analysis should be
carried out for a number of load histories in order to determine a reliable extreme value.
Model of the Environmental

Analysis Structural Model Excitation (alwavs nonlinear)
Level Random
Periodic Frequency Time
domain Domain
Linear A B
Simple SDOF
full Nonlinear Unsuitable Unsuitable
results not
available Linear Generally C
directly MDOF not
Nonlinear recommended E D
Complex - Linear Generally C

full MDOF not
results Nonlinear recommended E D
available
Notes:
A - Combines a simplistic model of the structural system with a simplistic model of

the excitation.
B - Is a refinement of case A. It remains simplistic to execute and lends itself to

both frequency and time domain methods. In the latter method the main
nonlinearities in the excitation can be retained and therefore non-gaussian
effects in the random response can be accounted for. Same limitations as for
case A.
C - Is a simplification of case D, if linear modeling of the structural system is a

sufficiently accurate representation.
D - Is the more complete and accurate representation of reality, but also the most
complex. This is a necessary combination for a detailed evaluation of the
dynamic behavior of a jack-up. Both random time and frequency domain
methods can be used; the latter requires some approximation in the form of
appropriate linearization of nonlinear terms and, therefore, the former are the
most suitable.
E - Incompatible combination.
Table C7.1 : Recommended combinations of the structural system and

environmental excitation models for a dynamic analysis
Wavp. Pp.riod in ItP.lation to Wave !,'orce Cancellation and ReinforcemeDt
12
11
10 -. "
----I - I .....---.. ..1-
.
9 ~~--
~-'
-II>
H
~
----- >--1
7
...---T
'tl
0 _1Y---~
v--.
~
-c
CI
c..
5
.....---r
1,...--.............. ~--
~
'"
>
cu
5
4 .--.-~.- ... . ----.. -h----r-=:- .-..-----'-
-----~ ._-
r~.----r
3
;,--
2
o
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
~S~acinJr [m I
.. 1st Wave Fllrce £I' lal Wave Foree ..- 1st WavE Force
Canc:eUauon Cancellation :ReinCorcem~nt
Waterdepth :: 30 m Waterdepth ~60 m Waterdepth .. 30 m
-()- 2nd Wave Fon:e -.. 2nd Wave Force
CaDCellation Reinfon:emeDt
Wsteniepth ;. 30 m Waterdepth ~30m
Nate: See sketches below for definll.lons.
WAVE (1) \
Horizontal Wave Force on _Jack-up Ri~
WAVE (1) _ _
\
WAVE (2)
t--- Leg Spacing -
T
lot
WAVE (1) 4-Leiif!d Ril' ..

U
s::
c.
1 ..
In
bIl
,.:i
1
- Wave Frequency
Wtlve Peried
- I
WAVE (1)
Figure C7.1 : Periods for wave force cancellation and reinforcement as

a function of leg spacing
APPENDIX C7.A - DERIVATION OF JACK-UP STIFFNESS EQUATION
To determine the natural period of a jack-up, the effective lateral stiffness seen by a horizontal
load acting at the level of the jack-up hull is required. To determine this stiffness the following
effects which cause hull lateral deflections are considered:
1. bending of the legs, leg-soil and leg-hull rotational stiffness.
2. shear defonnation of the legs.
3. axial defonnation of the legs.
4. hull bending defonnation.
5. horizontal soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
6. vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
7. second order P-~ or Euler amplification.
Effects 4, 5 and 6 may readily be considered by means of modifications to tenns in the stiffness
equation that can be derived for effects 1,2 and 3. Taking each effect in turn:
1. Bending of the legs, leg-soil and leg-hull rotational stiffness.
Consider one leg as shown in the Figure:
F = shear transmitted from the hull

E = Young's modulus
v = Poisson's ratio
I = second moment of area of leg
As = effective leg shear area
E,v L = length considered
E,As L Krh = leg-hull connection rotational
stiffness
Krs = leg-soil connection rotational
stiffness
Mh = moment on leg-hull spring
Ms = moment on leg-soil spring
The bending equation may be written for any section z-z as:
Mzz = F.z - Ms
substituting the general equation of flexure:
a2 x
EI az 2 = -M zz = Ms - Ez
hence:
Apply the boundary condition:

Ms
z=O x=O - = -
ax
, 'az Krs
ElMs
Hence: B =OandA=--
K rs
The deflection at any point is then given by:
Ms .Z2 F.z 3 Ms .z.EI
EIx = - - - + --"-- (1)
2 6 Krs
To detennine Ms, apply the boundary condition: z = L, Mb

ax =Mh-
=F.L - Ms, -a
z Krh
also from (1):
ax
-=-----+-
Ms.Z F.z 2 Ms
az EI 2EI K rs
Thus when z =L:
ax Ms.L
-------+-------"-
F.L2 ms Mh F.L- Ms
az - EI 2EI K rs - Krb - Krb
rearranging:
(2)
The deflection XLB at x =L, due to bending is (from (1)):

Ms .L2 Ms.L F.e
x - +-----
LB - 2EI K rs 6EI
Rearranging and substituting from (2), the effective bending stiffness, KB =F/xLB, at z =Lis
obtained thus:
e
6EI
-1
KB--
e
6EI
After rearrangement and manipulation:
3EI/e
KB = ---,,-------:- (3)
3L 3(EI)2
2. Shear defonnation of the legs.
Considering the shear force at any section zz is constant, the deflection XzzS due to shear is:
Xzzs = F.z/(As·G)
but:
G = E/{2(1 + v)} and, for steel, v = 0.3
hence:
Xzzs =2.6F.z!(As.E) (4)
and the shear stiffness, K s , when x = Lis:
F As.E
Ks=-=-- (5)
XLS 2.6L
3. Axial defonnation of the legs.
A) Consider a 3-leg jack-up, and assume that the legs are placed at the vertices of an equilateral
triangle. The shear applied to the hull is 3F, i.e. F acting on each leg.
- - -..... 3F
A A A L
---y-
x
Case 1 Case 2
3.F.L - 3.Mu - R.Y =0 3.F.L - 3.Mu - R.X =0

thus: thus:
R = R =
applying Hook's law:
Oaxial = 3(EL - Ms )L
Oaxial =
3(EL- M s)L
A.E.Y A.E.X
The resulting hull rotation is:

Shull = 3.Oaxia1l(2.Y) = 2.oaxiallX
9(EL- Ms)L 6(EL- M s)L
= =
2A.E.y2 A.E.X2
and the horizontal hull deflection is:
~horz = 8hulI .L ~horz = 8hul1.L
9(F.L- M s)L2 6(F.L- Ms )L2
= 2A.E.y2 =
A.E.X2
yJ3
If X =Y/cos30 = -2-
9(F.L-MJL2
~horz = 2A.E.y2
i.e. assuming an equilateral hull, the two loading directions yield the same horizontal
displacement at the hull:
9(F.L - Ms )L2
= 2A.E.y2 (6)
B) Consider an N-Iegjack-up, where N = 4, and assume that the legs are placed in two parallel
rows. The shear applied to the hull is NF, i.e. F acting on each leg.
Applying similar methods as above:

4(F.L- M s)L2
~horz = A.E.y 2
(7)
where Y is the distance between the windward and leeward leg rows.
Comparing equations (6) and (7), it can be seen that (6) is a factor, Fg , of:
Fc>e = (9/2)/4 = 1.125
larger than (7).
The effective horizontal stiffness due to axial deformation, K A , rearranging (7), including Fg and
substituting for Ms from (2) is:
F
KA = ~horz·Fg
A.E.y2 14FgL2
=
{L L' }Krh + 2EI
L- {IlL}
Krs + Krh + EI
A.E. y2 14FgL3
= (8)
{E1 L}
K rs +"2
{El EI }
-+L+-
Krs Krh
4. Hull bending deformation.
Assume that the hull can be represented by equivalent beams joining the legs, of typical bending
stiffness IH :
I 2 I
If it is assumed that the hull deflects in double-curvature under the influence of the moments
transmitted by the leg-hull connection springs, and that the rotational deflections at the two sides
are equal (the side with higher stiffness has two legs acting on it) we can write, for one half of the
beam:
M.(Y /2)
e = E.I H
Hence the hull rotational stiffness Khu1h = Mle = 2E.lHIY
If this stiffness is considered as acting in series with the leg-hull connection spring Krh , the
modified stiffness is:
K 1I(_I_+_I_J
rh
'
Krb K
=
hull
Rearranging, and substituting for Khull gives:

Y.Krh
K rh ' = Krh/(1 + )
2E.I H
Hence the modification factor Fro to be applied to the leg-hull connection stiffness, Krh , to
account for hull flexibility is:
1
= (9)
{I+ Y.Krh }
2E.I H
5. Horizontal soil leg-hull connection stiffness.
The horizontal soil and leg-hull connection stiffnesses, Khs and Kbh, may be considered to act in
series with the lateral stiffness due to leg shear deformation (AsGIL). The combined stiffnesses
is then:
Ks' = ( L 1 1)
11 - - + - + -
AsG Khs Khh
rearranging, gives:
AsG AsG
Ks' = (AsGIL)/(l + - - + - - )
LKhs LKhh
= (AsGIL)(l + As·E + As·E )
2.6L.K hs 2.6L.K hh
If it is considered that the modified leg deformation stiffness Ks' is linked to the unmodified
value by a factor, Fh:
1
= (10)
6. Vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
The vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffnesses, Kvs and K vh , may be considered to act in
series with the axial stiffness due to leg axial deformation (AE/L). The combined stiffnesses is
then:
= 1I(~+_1_+_1-J
AE Kvs Kvh
rearranging:
AE AE
= (AE/L)/(l + - - + - - )
LKvs LKvh
If it is considered that the modified leg deformation stiffness KA ' is linked to the unmodified
value by a factor, Fv:
1
= (11)
l+_AE +_AE }
{ L.Kvs L.Kvh
7. Second order P-L\ or Euler amplification.
The deflection will (approximately) be amplified by a factor (1 - [PIPED due to second order
effects. The Euler load, P E, may be derived as follows, accounting for the soil and leg-hull
connection rotational springs:
~p
P == axial load in leg
E == Young's modulus
I == second moment of area of leg
L == length considered
Krh == leg-hull connection rotational
stiffness
E,I Krs leg-soil connection rotational
L z ==
stiffness
Mh == moment on leg-hull spring
z
Ms == moment on leg-soil spring
Xh == hull deflection
The bending equation may be written for any section z-z as:
Mzz == P.x -Ms
substituting the general equation of flexure:
iPx
EI-2 == -Mzz == Ms - P.x
az
hence:
ax
-+
2
-=-
P.x Ms
az
2
E.I E.I
let Jl2 == PIE.!
hence:
aaz x + Jl - (x - p)
2
2
ryMs
=0 (12)
The solution to (12) is:
x == A.CosJlz + B.SinJlZ + pMs (13)
differentiating (13):
ax . + JlB.CosJlZ
az == -JlA.SmJlz (14)
When z == 0, x == 0 and hence, from (13), A == -MsIP

When z == 0, -a = -
Msax and hence, from (14) B == MsI(Jl.Krs )
z Krs
-Ms Ms. Ms
x = --.CosJlZ+--.SmJlZ+-
Thus: P JlK rs P (15)
-ax =--.SmJlZ
JlM s . Ms
+ - .CosJlZ
and: az P Krs (16)
Apply boundary conditions at leg-hull interface to derive the equation yielding the Euler load:
Whenz=L,
ax = Mh (17)
az Krh
and x =Xh (18)
also (19)
From (16) and (17):

Mh ~s Ms
-=--.Sin~+-.Cos~ (20)
Krh P Krs
From (15) and (18):
Ms Ms Ms
Xh= --.Cos~+--.sin~+- (21)
P J.LK rs P
Substituting (21) into (19) gives:
P.M s
Mh= -Ms.Cos~+--.Sin~
IlK rs
Mh P
hence: - = --.Sin~- Cos~ (22)
Ms IlKrs
Rearranging (20) gives:
Mh J.LK m Km
-=--.Sin~+-.Cos~ (23)
Ms . P Krs
Equating the (22) and (23):
Sin~ P IlKm
-} =Cos~{Km
1 + -}
{- ---
Il.K rs P K rs
I + Km}
{
or: TanJ.1L = K rs
_P _
{ Il·K
IlKm}
rs P
(24)
Notes:
1. When Krs = 0, and Krh = 00, (24) reduces to Tan~ = 00
i.e. ~ = rrJ2, 3rrJ2, 5rrJ2, ...
The smallest finite value satisfying (24) is rrJ2, thus J.1L = rrJ2 and 112 = P/(EI) hence:
PE =JiEI I (4L2)
2. When Krs = 00, and Krh = 00, (24) reduces to Tan~L = 0
i.e. ~L = 0, n, 2n, 3n, ...
Rejecting the first value (~L = 0) as this give PE = 0, the smallest value satisfying (24) is
~L=n
hence:
PE = n2EII L2
3. For finite values of Krs and Krh the Euler load may be determined using a graphical solution.
For example:
Krs 2.65 X 10lO Nmlrad
Krh 5.30 x 10lO Nmlrad
E 2.10 x lOll N/m2
I 7.45 m 4
L 100m
From equation (24) the LHS = Tan~L = Tan100~ (Note ~ is in radians/m)

(Krs + Krh )~EI
theRHS =
(~EI)2 - (Krs .K rh )
124.4/J
2448~ 2 -1.4045
Plotting these as shown in Figure C7.A.1 the smallest non-zero value in the example is
~1 = 0.018248. Thus the Euler crippling load is:
PE = (0.018248iEI
or, in the more general form:
PE = 0.337389n2EI/ L2
10
\ r
8
6
4
J
\ , I'-.. I
•
/ ~ /
fu(]t )
2
0
....",., 1'-1 ~ ~
:li2
~
"
~.
,£
'~~
"h6
0 -0.01 ......... ol~ 0.03
-2 ........
i'Jr' I(
-4
-6
(\ f
-8
1\
-10
\
Ii (radlm)
- LHS-Eqn. (24) - RHS-Eqn. (24)
Figure C7.A.1 Graphical solution of equation (24)

COMBINING EFFECTS 1 TO 7 ABOVE:
For the leg under consideration, all the effects can be combined by considering the components
as springs in series, thus Ke, the effective spring stiffness for one leg is deduced from:
1 1 1 1
-=-+-+-
Ke KB Ks KA
where the stiffness terms K B , Ks and KA are derived in (3), (5) and (8). Rearranging and
including the Euler amplification effect:
=
3L 3(EI)2 EI L
-- -+-
4 LKrsKm Krs 2
l-
EI EI EI EI
-+L+- -+L+-
Krs Km 2.6L Krs Krh
--
3EII rJ
=
3L 3(EI) 2 3(EI) 2 3EI
-- 3 L3K + -
4 LKrsKm 7.81 4Fg L rs 2L2
I- +--+
EI EI As.L2 AEy2 EI EI
-+L+- -+L+-
Krs Krh Krs Krh
If the correction terms to Krh , As and A which are Fr, Fh, and Fv as defined in (9), (10) and (11)
respectively are included:
If the foundation is effectively pinned, and Krs = 0, the equation can be simplified as follows
(multiply top and bottom of central term in denominator by Krs , and then set Krs =0):
3EI[1_~]
K = IJ P
E
e 12Fg I 3EI 7.81
1+ 2 + + 2
FyAY FrLK rh Fh.As.L
If the foundation and leg-hull connection are effectively encastre, and Krs =Krh =00, the equation
can be simplified as follows (note that the Fr term to incorporate hull stiffness has vanished, as its
definition relies on a finite value of Krh ; if an alternative definition were applied, its effect could
be retained).
12EI[l_~]
L3 P
K = E
e 24Fg I 31.21
1+ 2 + 2
FyAY Fh.As.L
In the absence of any of the terms for effects other than bending (i.e. setting A and As to infinity),
this further reduces to 12EIIL3 , which is as expected for a beam, encastre at each end, with one
end free to slide.
APPENDIX C7.B - DETAll.S OF APPROPRIATE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS l.\1ETHODS
Section 7.3.6.1 of the PRACTICE provides a simple approach to determining the

dynamic response, based on the SDOF approximation. Sections 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.7 of the
PRACTICE outline more complex approaches and some specific recommendations are
included in Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.
It should be noted that the basic analysis may be carried out in either the frequency or
time domain and that there are then a number of approaches for determining the
required most probable maximum (MPM) response which is defined in Table 7.3 of the
PRACTICE as the mode value (or highest point on the PDF with a 63% chance of
exceedance). This corresponds to a 111000 probability level in a 3-hour storm.
The recommended, more complex, analysis methods are described below, together with
appropriate methods of determining the MPME. These may be summarized as follows:
C7.B.1 Analysis Methods
C7.B.1.1 Frequency Domain Methods:

Use entire RAO (DAP) from simplified SDOF model.
Use RAO from multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) model, with appropriate
linearizati on.
Frequency domain methods require the linearization of the wave-current drag loading.
It is recommended that the statistical (or least squares) linearization procedure
formulated by Borgman is adopted [L.E. Borgman, 'Ocean Wave Simulation for
Engineering Design', Civil Engineering in the Oceans, ASCE conference, San
Francisco, September 1967]; other forms of linearization may not adequately handle the
current velocity, wave induced particle velocity and the structures velocity (if a relative
velocity formulation is used). Table 7.2 of the PRACTICE makes some additional
recommendations regarding the generation of the random seastate.
C7.B.1.2 Time Domain methods:

Use simplified SDOF model.
Use MDOF model.
Time domain simulations require a suitable generation of the random seastate, that the
validity of the generated seastate is checked, and that the time-step for the solution of
the equations of motion is sufficiently small. It is also necessary to ensure that the
duration of the simulation(s) is sufficient for the method being used to determine the
MPME. Specific recommendations are given in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 of the PRACTICE.
C7.B.2 Methods for Determining the MPME
It should be noted that the simpler modeling approaches will not lead directly to the
MPME of all quantities of interest. For example, SDOF based models will provide
directly only the MPME hull displacement; simpler multi-degree-of-freedom models
may provide the MPME of total leg loads, but will not lead directly to loads in
individual members of a truss-leg.
As a means of circumventing this difficulty the analysis may be used solely to
determine the inertial loadset which represents the contribution of dynamics over and
above the quasi-static response (see Figure C7.B.l). The inertialloadset is then applied
to a structural model of appropriate complexity together with all the quasi-static loads
(due to wind, wave!current, weight, etc.) and the required responses determined. The
simplest inertial loadset uses a single point load at deck level. The magnitude of this
force is calculated to match the inertial overturning moment effects as shown on the
right hand side of figure C7.B.l (blocks 18,23, 24, and 25). It is possible to refine this
loadset to match both base shear and overturning moment inertial effects by simply
determining the magnitude of the loadset to match the inertial base shear and then
applying this loadset (single point load) at an elevation such that the inertial overturning
moment is matched.
However, the use of a distributed inertial loadset is considered more representative and
will, in tum, result in a more accurate description of the component dynamic
amplification effects as well as the amplification of global responses. The distribution
of the inertial loadset is based on the fundamental sway modes and the mass
distribution and is determined so that both the global base shear and overturning
moment responses are matched. Figure C7.B.l (on the left hand side) outlines how a
distributed loadset (2-dimensional response) is determined based on the first two
fundamental bending modes (in the same direction) and the mass distribution.
An alternative to the inertialloadset approach is to use transfer functions to link known

responses with other required responses (for example to determine leg member loads
from total leg loads). The derivation of such transfer functions requires the use of
appropriately detailed models. Where non-linearities are significant the transfer
functions are not linear (and cannot be linearized) and may vary, for example, as a
function of the level of leg load(s).
The following methods are recommended for determining the MPME:
Use of drag-inertia parameter (or equivalent) determined from mean and

standard deviation of a frequency or time-domain analysis.
Fit Weibull distribution to results of a number of time-domain simulations to
I
determine responses at required probability level and average the results.
Fit Gumbel distribution to histogram of peak responses from a number of time-
domain simulations to determine responses at required probability level.
Apply Winterstein's Hermite polynomial method to the results of time domain
simulation(s).
Further details of the approaches are given below:

C7.B.2.1 Use ordrag-inertia parameter (or equivalent) determined from mean and standard
deviation ora frequency or time-domain analysis
This procedure relies on the identification of the two components of the total dynamic
response, i.e. the quasi-static and the 'inertial' parts. The 'inertial' part is the
amplification of the quasi-static part due to dynamic effects, and should not be confused
with inertial wave loading. The procedure requires the detennination of the basic
statistical parameters of the mean, J..l, and the standard deviation (excluding the mean),
cr, of the required response variable(s). In general the root-mean-square, RMS, -:;:. cr,
unless J..l = O. The notation MPMR is used to refer to the most probable value of the
response minus the mean response, R(t) - J..lR, for a given storm duration. When the
mean is included the MPM value is referred to as the most probable maximum extreme
of R(t) and denoted by MPMER.
The response quantity of interest is indicated by the general notation R; this can be any
quantity which is related to the random wave excitation (e.g. base shear BS, overturning
moment OTM, etc.) Where necessary to distinguish between different forms of
response a second subscript is used as follows: 's' for (quasi-)static, 'i' for inertial and 'd'
for total dynamic (quasi-static plus inertial) response.
The procedure for estimating the extreme response is shown on Figure C7.B.4, and
requires the means and standard deviations of the (overall) dynamic and quasi-static
response, and the standard deviation of the 'inertial' response. These can be determined
from time domain simulations (Figure C7.B.2) or frequency domain analyses (Figure
C7.B.3). Figures C7.B.5 or C7.B.6 form an input to Figure C7.B.4. These Figures are
based on [SIPM EPD/51152 Dynamic Analysis and Estimation of Extreme Responses
for Jack-Ups', August 1991].
C7.B.2.2 Fit Weibull distribution to results of a number of time-domain; simulations to
determine responses at required probability level and,' average the results.
This procedure requires a suitable length time domain simulation record for each
quantity of interest. The input seastate record should be checked for 'Gaussianity'.
Guidance is given in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 of the PRACTICE. The procedure requires the
following steps.
Step 1
The signal record is first analyzed to calculate the mean, J..lR, as:
n
LR(tJ
i-...:.l_ _
J..l R = ..:..
n
where
R(tj) = time history of signal
ti = time points
n = number of useable time points in simulation
(discounting the run-in)
Step 2
The individual point-in-time maxima are next extracted according to the following
criteria:
A maximum occurs at ti if:

R(ti-I) < R(tD and R(tj+I) ~ R(tj)
Suppose Nmax maxima are found in the extraction.
Step 3
From the Nmax maxima, the mean of the signal, J..lR, is subtracted and the maxima R(max,i)
are ranked into 20 blocks having mid-points in ascending order. The blocks all have
the same width and the upper bound of block 20 is taken as being 1.01 x the largest
value, the lower bound of the first block being zero. A distribution of maxima
observations is then found, using for each block the Gumbel plotting position in order
to obtain the best possible description of the distribution for large values of R. If each
block has nj maxima, the cumulative probability Fi to be plotted against the mid point
for block i is then given by:
j=i-l )=1
F; =[(1+ Ln)Ln)O.5 /(N max +1)

j=O j=O
where no =O.
C7.B.2.2 Step 4.a
A Weibull distribution is fitted against the cumulative distribution of the maxima as
defined under Step 3 (see Steps 4.b to 4.d). The 3-parameter Weibull cumulative
distribution function is defined as:
where;
F(R;a,j3,y) = I -exp .[ -{R2 n
F(R;a,j3,y) = probability of non-exceedance
a = scale parameter
13 = slope parameter
y = threshold parameter
and a,j3,CR-y) > 0.0
Step 4.b
Only data points R(max,i), corresponding to a probability of non-exceedance greater than
a threshold value of 0.2 are used to fit the Weibull distribution, i.e. only the points:
[ R(max,i) {
N max - i +
N max
I}] for i>0.2 x Nmax
Notice that R(max,i) are in ascending order.
Step 4.c
For each of these points, the deviations between the Weibull distribution and the values
R(max,i) (transformed to Weibull scales) are calculated as:
Oi = In[ -In {l-FCR(max,i),a,j3,y)}] - !3[ln(r(max,i)-Y) -InCa)]
Step 4.d
The parameters a,j3,y are now estimated by a non-linear least square technique, i.e.
Nmax
L 2
0 i is minimized
i=O.2Nmax
The procedure may be based on a Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm, using the
parameters of a 2-parameter Wei bull distribution (found by the maximum likelihood
method) as initial estimates.
Step 5
The MPM value R MPM is found as the value of R for which:
1
F(R,a,j3,y) 1- { = 3 hours }
N max· simulation duration
Step 6
The total extreme MPM value, R MPME is found as:
R MPME =
J..lR + RMPM
where J..lR =the mean value of R established in Step 1 R MPM = the MPM value
(excluding the mean) established in Step 5.
Step 7
The procedure is repeated for each required response parameter.
C7.B.2.3 Fit Gumbel distribution to histogram of peak responses from a number oftime-domain
simulations to determine responses at required probability level.
The basic assumption of this method is that the 3-hour extreme values follow a Gumbel
distribution:
P''(x) = exp [-exp{_ x ~ \jI}]

where;
= the probability that the 3-hour maximum will not exceed value x.
= location parameter
= scale parameter
The following steps are followed for each required response parameter:
Step 1
Extract maximum (and minimum) value for each of 10 3-hour response signal records.
Step 2
A Gumbel distribution is fitted through these 10 maxima/minima. This is done using
the maximum likelihood method, yielding \II and K.
Step 3
The Most Probable Maximum Extreme is found according to:
MPME = \jI -
K In {- In{P" (MPME))}
with;
p3h (MPME) = 0.37
The 0.37 lower quantile is used because the extreme of recurrence of once in 3 hours
will have a probability of exceedance of 0.63 (= 1 - 0.37). In this case it can be seen
that:
MPME =\11
Step 4
The procedure of Step 3 is similarly applied for minima.
Commentaries to Recommended Practice/or Site Specific Assessment 0/ Page 149
C7.B.2.4 Apply Winterstein's Hermite polynomial method to the results of time domain
simulation(s).
For Gaussian processes, analytical results exist for the determination of the MPM
values (e.g. MPM wave height = 1.86 x significant wave height). For general non-
inear, non-gaussian, finite band-width processes, approximate methods are required to
generate the probability density function of the process. The method proposed by
Winterstein [Winterstein S.R., 'Non-Linear Vibration Models for Extremes and
Fatigue', Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 114, No 10, 1988] fits a Hermite
polynomial of gaussian processes to transform the non-linear, non-gaussian process into
a mathematically tractable probability density function. This has been further refined
by Jensen [Jensen, J.J. Dynamic Amplification of Offshore Steel Platform Responses
due to Non-Gaussian Wave Loads', The Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and
Mechanics Report No 425, May 1991, Submitted to Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE] for processes with large kurtosis.
This procedure requires a suitable length time domain simulation record for each
quantity of interest. The input seastate record should be checked for 'Gaussianity'.
Guidance is given in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of the PRACTICE. The calculation procedure
to determine the maximum of a time series, R(t), in duration T is as follows:
Step 1
Calculate the following quantities of the time series for the parameter under
consideration:
Il = mean of the process
0" = standard deviation
a3 = skewness
C4 = kurtosis
Step 2
Hence construct a standardised response process, Z = (R - Jl)/O". Using this standardised
process, calculate the number of zero-upcrossings, N. In lieu of an actual cycle count
from the simulated time series, N =1000 may be assumed for a 3-hour simulation.
Step 3
Compute the following quantities from the characteristics of the response parameters
identified earlier:
h3 = a 3 1[4+2~{1+1.5(a4 -3)}]
= [~{1+ 1.5(a 4 - 3)} -1] 118
K =
Step 3
It is necessary to seek a more accurate result by determining the solution of the
following equations for C I , C2 and C3:
cr2 2 2
= C l + 6C I C3 + 2C2 + 15Cl
cr3a3 = C2(6C/ + 8cl + 72C I C 3 + 270Cl)
4 4 4 4 2 2
cr CX4 = 60C2 + 3C l + l0395C3 + 6oc l 2cl + 4500C 2 Cl + 630C l Cl +
936C l clc 3 + 3780c l cl + 60C l 3C 3
using as initial guesses:
CI = crK(1-3h4)
C2 = crKh3
C3 = crKh4
with cr, K, h3 and h4 from above. Following the solution for CJ, C2 and C 3, the values
for K, h3 and h4 are computed as follows:
K = (C I + 3C3)/cr
h3 = C2/( crK)
h4 = C3/( crK)
Step 4
The most probable value, U, of the transformed process is computed by the following
equation:
u = 210
ge
(N' simulation3 hours
time (in hours)
J
Where U is a Gaussian process of zero mean, unit variance.
Step 5
The most probable maximum, transformed back to the standardised variable, z, is then
given by:
=K[U + h3(U - 1) + h4(U3 - 3U)]
2
ZMPM
Step 6
Finally, the most probable maximum extreme in the period T, for the response under
consideration, can be computed from the following equation:
RMPME = Il + crZMPM
;:S:(J
C) C)
~~
Notes with Figure C7.B.1 - Part 1 ::::.:~
two global responses are necessary:) ~ ~
R Is base shear BS, denoted S, and S:i'~
( overturning moment OlM, denoted T General ('") ~
~;::J.
I ~
The figure shows two possible paths. The path on the left through blocks 19 to~ :::
22 matches the dynamic base shear and the dynamic overturning moment, by ~ ~
17 making up the difference between the dynamic and static base shears by a~. ~
Determine increase Determine Increase In 18 distributed inertial force. This distributed inertial force is established by an t;j 8
In BS due to OTM due to appropriate combination of structural mode shapes and lumped masses. The ~
dynamic effect dynamic effect basis for the calculation is that the base shear and overturning moment inertial ~
=
F11 mpmesd - mpmess =
M11 mpmeTd - mpmeTs effects are simultaneously matched and combined in phase with the quasi-static ~
loads such that the levels of total global response are maximized. !}
=(DAF3s - 1) mpmess =(DAF3T -1) mpmeTs ~
By contrast, the path on the right chooses to match the dynamic overturning ~
moment by an inertial force in the form of a point load at deck level. This is a ~
choose to match either
F11 and M11 or Just M11 ~M11
F11&~ very reasonable approximation of the inertial loadset, for cases where the mass ~.
M11 of the hull is much larger than the masses of the legs and the mode participation ~
factor (the relative horizontal displacement of the vibrating jack-up) is also ~
~
M11 largest at the deck elevation. The inertial point load thus determined is again ..,
Fll not equal to the difference in dynamiC and static base shears; generally it ~
1
overmatches the dynamic base shear. In this case the remaining excess force ~
Establish a set of 2 19 Determine equivalent 23 is not compensated for (as was possible for the path on the left) and must be ~
simultaneous equations Inertial force F21 accepted as an element of some conservatism. ~
of 2-D mode shapes, at deck level ~ '$
nodal masses and M11 Ae blocks 17 and 18: The input to these blocks is obtained from Figure C7.B.4 ~ ('")
producing M1i
(blocks 14, 15 and 16). Note that DAF3T will be greater ~ ~
(unknown) model scalars =
F2i M11/h
than DAF3s. This is in agreement with experience and.N ~
supported by theory. ~ ~
+ 20
Ae block 19: An outline calculation of the distribution of F1 i over height § ~
is given in Figure C7.B.1 (Part 2). N ~
Solve the equations Ae block 23: The force F2i follows directly from the increase in OTM 2 ~
of block 19 to determine and the height h at which F2i is applied above the N <..::;.,
the scalars Q; and ~ effective hinge or fixation points of the legs Therefore this
does not require knowledge of the mass distribution and
mode shape.
+a,p F21
Ae block 24: The excess F3i in representing the dynamic base shear is
calculated as general verification. If F3i is found to be
21 24
Calculate the Inertial relatively large compared to the dynamic base shear it is
load set Ifn using F11 Determine excess In recommended to follow the path on the left instead of the
~ BS as conservatism path on the right. A criterion for this should be set by the
the equation I
=
Fin a.q>lM + Pq>2M
=
F31 F21- F11 I
user; as a suggestion the excess should not be greater
than up to 5% of the dynamiC base shear.
+Fin 22 25 i
F21
Loadset Is distributed
load vector Fin
Loadset Is point load
F2i at deck level
.- Figure C7.B.l, Part 1 - Procedure for determining inertialloadset
-- - - - - --- - ~
~
......
v.
......
JACK-UP
7f-----. Mass (Mj) +

Mass Fust bending mode (<DJ Second bending mode (q).) Distributed inertial
distribution scaled by ()( scaled by ~ Loadset (Fm)
Notes with Figure C7.B.1 - Part 2

Procedure for Determining (Distributed) Inertial Loadset.
The extreme inertial load will generally be three dimensional in nature. It should be noted that vertical dynamic response effects
are not normally significant for storm conditions. It is assumed that the response of the Jack-up under combination of wave/current
and inertial loading will be in-line with the applied wave and current actions. Hence a 2-D response is considered along one of the
global structural axes.
The first two bending sway modes (i.e. global modes rather than local leg bending modes) acting along the selected axis are
combined to form a pair of simultaneous equations which match both inertial base shear and overtuming moment. Base shear is
given by the product of mass and assumed acceleration profile, and overtuming moment by the product of mass, assumed lateral
acceleration profile and lever arm above footing level i.e.
M1i a$1 MZ+J3«1>2MZ

F1i a$1 M+J3«1>2M (1 )
where M1 i is the global inertial overtuming moment (zero mean)
F1 i is the global inertial base shear (zero mean)
$1 is the first global swaylbending mode shape
$2 is the second global swaylbending mode shape
M is a matrix of structural masses
Z is a vector of pOint elevations above footing level
a and J3 are scalars
Global inertial responses are calculated from the global response OAFs generated by the dynamic analyses, combined with the
design wave and current load i.e.
F1i = (DAF3s-1)mpmess
M1i = (DAF3r-1)mpmers (2)
where OAF3Ts is the global overtuming moment OAF (using mpme responses)
DAF3s s is the global base shear OAF (using mpme responses)
M1i is the maximum design wave and current overtuming moment
I
F1 i is the maximum design wave and current base shear
mpmess is the most probable maximum extreme static shear
mpmers is the most probable maximum extreme static overtuming moment
The simultaneous equations (1) are solved for scalar multipliers a and 13, which are used to calculate the inertial load set i.e.
I
Fin = a $1 M + 13 «1>2 M (3) •
In its current format, Fin is a distributed load vector consisting of horizontal forces applied to each pOint mass in the structure.
Equations (1) to (3) can be readily adapted such that the inertial load is fully three dimensional in nature, by using the first and
second global (3-0) sway modes along both horizontal axes, and extending equation set (1) to 4 components.
Jack-up structures exhibit several unique properties which allow the use of a simplified inertial load set calculation procedure. For
the majority of units, approximately 80% of the total system mass (including added fluid mass) effectively acts at the hull COG. In
addition, the mass and stiffness distribution results in the ratio of the first and second bending/sway mode periods for each principal
direction being in excess of 5. This leads to the resonant component of response being largely confined to the fundamental modes
in each direction (sway and surge), with a potential contribution from the first torsional mode (yaw). On this basis, and assuming
torsion can be ignored, equation set (1) can be reduced:
M1 i aOtiMHZH
F1i aOtiMH (4)
where OH is the first mode shape ordinate at the hull COG
MH is the point mass acting at the hull COG
ZH is the elevation of the hull COG above footing level
We can clearly relate the second of equations (4) with the inertial load set given in Section 7.3.6.1 of the Practice.
Figure C7.B.1, Part 2 - Procedure for determining <distributed) inertialloadset

1 2
Perform quasi-static Perform dynamtc
lime domain sirnulaUon time domain simulation
to determine Ule to determine the
response Rs (t) response Re' (t)
3
Subtract tho tVliO to
R(t'.
!j. • ) determin e the
time series of tha
"inertial" response
R i (t) = Rd(t) - Rs(t)
Ai (t)
Perform statistical 4 Perform stat~stical s Perform statislical G
analysis on R.. (1) analysis on R i (t) anafysis on Rd (l)
to determine mean to determine mean to determine mean
IlI1~
and
•
std. dev.cr R5 ~lR' and std. dev.aflj
Of "inertia!"' response
Jl'Rd nr.d s.ld. dev'O'Rd
of dynamic response
o static response
Specific notes with Figure C7.B.2
General
The procedure for estimating the extreme response due to hydrodynamic loading shown in Figure C7.B.4 requires knowledge of the
mean and the standard deviation of the quasi-static and dynamic responses, and the standard deviation of the "inertial" response.
A time domain procedure may be used to determine these.
Re blocks 4, 5, 6: The mean of the "inertial" response is not used in the procedure. In most cases the mean of the static
response will be (approximately) equal to the mean of the dynamic response. Therefore, the mean of the
"inertial" response will be (approximately) zero. This may serve as a check on the simulations performed.
However, under certain conditions the means may truly be different. this can most clearly be seen when
relative velocities (Le. the wave indUCed water particle velocity minus the structure's velocity) are used to
perform the dynamic simulation.
Figure C7.B.2 Time domain procedure for determining mean and standard
deviation
Perfonn quasi-static Perlorm dynamic 2

frequency domain analysis frequency domain analysis
to delennine mean J.I. As 10 determine mean llR. I---
of stalic response ~nd of dynamic response and
stalic transfer luncLion dynamic lransi.r function
HR , (.,) under iineruised HAd''') under tinearised
wave + currenlloadinQ wave + current loading
Perlorm complex number 3

subtraction to determine
~_H....;"'_~ 'ineniar' transferfune1ion ~
HR;(OJ) • HR. (OJ)' HR,(OJ)
. - - - - , . - - - - - 'i
ItAi HAd
Perform spectral Perform spectral Perform spectral

analysis on HRJro) analysis on H R, «(I) analysis on HR. ("')
to determine std. dev. to determine Sid. dev. to determine std. dev.
of static response of "iner1ial' response of dynamic response
aRlO URi O'Ad
1
6)
General
The procedure for estimating the extreme response due to hydrodynamic loading shown in Figure C7.B.4 requires knowledge of the
mean and the standard deviation of the quasi-static and the dynamic responses, and the standard deviation of the "inertial"
response. A frequency domain procedure may be used to determine these. In order to reflect the interactions between the current
velocity, the absolute wave induced water particle velocity and the structure's velocity (if a relative velocity formulation is adopted)
and to linearize the associated drag loading adequately it is necessary to adopt a statistical or least squares linearization procedure
as first formulated by Borgman (see Ref. below). Other forms of linearization in frequency domain analysis cannot handle these
interactions.
For the least square linearization procedure, there only is a mean response in case of a non-zero current. The magnitude of the
mean depends on the value of the current velocity and on the standard deviation of the wave induced (horizontal) water particle
velocity, both taken at the same elevation z, and subsequently integrated over the full water depth. The wave induced water
particle velocity may be the absolute or the relative velocity, depending on which of these is more appropriate for the case
considered.
The transfer functions HRs(OO) and HRd(OO) between the response and the water surface elevation are similarly dependent on both the
wave induced (horizontal) absolute or relative velocities and the current velocities at various elevations.
The means mRs and mRd and the transfer functions HRs(OO) and HRd(W), are therefore a function of the sea state and the current
sued in the environmental definition.
Re block 3: The transfer function representing the difference between the dynamic and the quasi-static response is
only notionally associated with "mass inertial" forces (not to be confused with inertial wave loading). The
difference may additionally be due to damping forces and any effect causing (frequency dependent) phase
differences between HRd(OO) and HRs(OO). (e.g. associated with multi degree of freedom system responses).
Re blocks 4, 5, 6: The spectral analyses operate on the transfer functions HRx(W), which by definition represent the time
varying part of the response minus the mean, i.e. Rx(t)-I.I.Rx,
A similar note on the mean values of the various responses as given with Figure C7.B.2 should be made
here. The mean value of the "inertial" response cannot be determined in a frequency domain analYSis
and is not required either. However, the fact remains that in most cases the mean of the static response
will be (approximately) equal to the mean of the dynamic response. This should again serve as a useful
check 0 the analyses performed.
From the above general note it can be seen that both means will only be non-zero if there is a current
present. When relative velocities are used in the analysis of the dynamic problem the interaction between
the current and the relative velocity may be different for the dynamic and the static case, resulting in
realistically different mean values.
Reference:
L.E. Borgman
"Ocean wave simulation for engineering design"
Civil Engineering in the Oceans, ASCE conference, San Francisco, September 1967
Figure C7.B.3 Frequency domain procedure for determining mean and standard
deviation
).I~ rcr:1 °Ri CfF.d I

@
(jRd
O'Ri I
CJMS Calculate correlation coe!f.
(j~ - (j~s - O'~

e· PR =
Dete~mfne Dynamic 2GR.<1~
O'~
Amplification Factor 1
DAFt R
aRc!
=-
°AII .-
(jRI
9 10
De:ermine mpm-factor mpm-fac:or for the
for static response Rs "inertial" ~esponse RI 1 ;
(se9 fig- 4) is assumed to be 3.7
CR~=--
rnp~. mpm R
C Ai - - - - 3 . 7
i
I
:
O'Ri
GAS
._.
I i
I
I
c~
C R5 Estimate mpm for dynamfc response " ;
{mpm~d)Z - (CRs(jIls)Z + (CRjGRJ + 2 PR I
(jll~
+ 2P~ (eFts 0'1'1.) (C",O'fl.) °I'll
12
Determine'Dtnamic
Amplification Factor 2 13
CAs Detenrine mpm·factor
mpmRd ror dynamic response Rd
DAF2 R = - - mpm:>ld ~Rd 0''''(1
mpmR•
Or-s mpm'ld
CRd = ...(j-
f1lprn rld
fW
:=--
CAsO'Rs
'--_.
CAd
.4 I~
en.
Ons
Deterrnioe
mpm extrema for
I, Determine
mpm e~treme for ......
(j~4
5 tatic response dynamic response

IlAo !lRri
mpme Rs • IlRS + C RS (lAs mpmeRd ==).Irk! + C nd (inc
16
Delermirte Dynawic
mpme n• Amplilica:ion Factor 3 mplTc"'d
II'1'meRd
DAF3!'1"'---
mpmeRs
Figure C7.BA Procedure for estimating the extreme response


Re block 7: The correlation coefficient pR is theoretically a value between -1 and +1. For virtually all
arplications to offshore structures problems it is expected that:
o Rd > 02RS + 02Ri so that 0 < pR < 1.
For rR = 0, zero correlation, the quasi-static and "inertial" responses do not influence one
another and will be well separated in the frequency domain. This is generally only to be
expected for relatively low natural periods which fall in the (very) high frequency tail of the
wave spectrum and where HRs(ro) is also very low. Under these circumstances the variance
(or mean square) of the full dynamic response is equal to the sum of the variances of the
quasi-static response and the "inertial" response:
=
02Rd 02RS + 02Ri
Geometrically, this means a direct addition of non-overlapping areas of the two parts of the
response spectrum.
=
For rR 1, full correlation, the quasi-static and "inertial" responses are fully dependent on one
another. The two parts of the response spectrum overlap strongly and will not really be
distinguishable. This will increasingly be the case for high natural periods, considerably closer
to the peak of the wave spectrum and therefore associated with a region of significant wave
energy, and where HRs(ro) is also having appreciable values. Under these circumstances the
standard deviation (instead of the variance) of the full dynamic response is equal to the sum of
the standard deviations of the quaSi-static response and the "inertial" response:
ORd =ORs + ORi
Re blocks 8,12,16: Several definitions of the dynamic amplification factor OAF are in use. The purest and most
meaningful definition is believed to be OAF1, the ratio of the standard deviations of the
dynamic and static responses (block 8), i.e. after eliminating the means which are not affected
by dynamic magnification. If the static and the dynamic processes are both gaussian, or to an
=
equal degree non-gaussian, then OAF2 OAF1; however, this will not be the case in general.
The ratio OAF3 of the most probably maximum extremes, including the means, is a practical
overall measure of the increase in response due to dynamics.
Re block 9: The mpm-factor for an arbitrary non-gaussian response is not known. As an engineering
postulate it is assumed that this is equal to the mpm-factor for Morison type wave loading on a
cylindrical element of unit length. The factor for a nominal number of 1000 peaks
(corresponding approximately with a 3 hr storm duration) then varies between the extremes of
3.7 (for inertial wave loading only and hence a gaussian process) and 8.0 (for drag waver
loading only and consequently a strongly non-gaussian process). It can be determined on the
basis of a drag-inertia parameter or the kurtosis of the response, as shown in Figure C7.B.5
with its associated notes.
Note that the factor 8.0 is different from the previously used factor of 8.6. This is due to the
fact that in this report the most probably maximum is conSistently used as a predictor for the
maximum of a random process. The previous factor 8.6 referred to the expected maximum
instead of the most probably maximum.
Re block 10: The mpm-factor for the "inertial" part of the response is associated with the dynamic behavior
and predominantly of a purely narrow banded resonant nature. Experience has shown (and
theory supports this) that such lightly damped dynamic processes tend towards gaussianity so
that a mpm-factor of 3.7 is a reasonable and confident assumption for engineering purposes.
Re block 11: The relationship between the mpm-values is entirely analogous with the relationship between
the standard deviations from which the correlation coefficient is determined. However, while it
is theoretically proven equation for the standard deviations, it is an engineering postulate for
the mpm-values.
Re blocks 14,15: It should be recalled that the procedure depicted in Figures C7.B.2 to C7.B.6 is aimed at
estimating the extreme short-term response due to hydrodynamic loading only (see General
Note 1). Therefore, the effect of wind should be excluded from the most probably maximum
extreme static and dynamic responses in block 14 and 15, respectively. Wind is assumed to
produce a static load and a static response, and not to influence the dynamic behavior. To
determine the ultimate response the mean response due to wind should be determined
separately and added to mpmeRs and mpmeRd.
Notes to Figure C7.BA

Sa 9b
Determine std. dey. of Determine std. deY. of

static response under static response under
hydrodynamic drag hydrodynamic inertia
loading only loading only
(JRs(Cm- 0) (JRS(CCS - 0)
calculate drag-inertia
parameter for the static
response
~8
O'Rs(Cm- 0)
K - _.
Rs O'As (Cd" 0)
y
Estimate C RS from
D - 8.0 O'RS(C m - 0)
M .. 3.7 (JRs(Cd .. 0) 9cI
Read CRs from
S2 _ O'~(Cm - 0) + (J~s(Cd .0) Figure C7.8.6
Figure C7.B.5 Procedure for determining the mpm-factor of the static response

Re blocks 9a and 9b: These standard deviations may be obtained from separate time domain simulations in the same manner
as shown in Figure C7.B.2 (blocks 1 and 4) or, altematively, from separate frequency domain analyses as
shown in Figure C7.B.3 (blocks 1 and 4). The mean values are not required and neither is it necessary to
subtract dynamic and static response time series or transfer functions, respectively.
Re block 9c: The drag-inertia parameter is defined as the ratio of the magnitude of the drag force to the magnitude of
the inertia force due to waves. All relationships given below are valid for the case of zero current, which is
used as the basis for the whole procedure in view of the engineering approximations involved. For an
element of a circular cylinder of diameter D and unit length, subjected to a periodic wave, the drag-inertia
parameter then becomes:
1 1
K ( - P Cd D J!) 1 ( - Cm P 1t D2 a)
2 4
2
2C d v
(1 )
7tC m Da
Where v and a are the velocity and the acceleration normal to the element, respectively. As both v and a
depend on the wave parameters (wave height, wave period, waterdepth) and the elevation at which the
element is located, it is obvious that K is also a function of depth, waterdepth, wave height and wave
period. therefore, the theoretical definition of K is only meaningful for Morison wave loading per unit
length of the element.
The definition of K can be generalized to random instead of periodic wave conditions by replacing the
deterministic normal velocity v by the standard deviation of the random normal velocity (Jv and replacing
the deterministic normal acceleration a by the standard deviation of the random normal acceleration (Ja.
Equation (1) then becomes:
2
2C d o v
K (2)
7tC m D(Ja
Using a statistical or least squares linearization procedure in the frequency domain, as developed by
Borgman (see notes with Figure C7.B.3), it can be shown that for the wave force on an element of a single
member the standard deviations of the two parts of the wave force are as follows:
= = ..J8I":.
(JR(C m 0) 1/2 P Cd D.d
(JR(Cd = 0) = p C m.1/41t D2 .(Ja
These relationships can be used to determine (J} and (Ja, which can then be substituted into equation 2 to
result in:
K
In OR (C m = 0)
(3)
V-;· (JR (Cd = 0)
With R being the wave force per unit length in a random sea.
Equation (3) may subsequently be generalized to apply to any other local or global response R selected
for interest. It will be clear that such a generalization is purely an engineering postulate and not founded
on theoretical reasoning. It is an attempt to incorporate the important but unknown non-gaussian effects
on the maximum response through the assumed similarity with the wave loading process for which the
non-gaussian statistics are known.
Yet another way to determine the drag-inertia parameter K for a generalized response R is by using the
kurtosis of R. The kurtosis is defined through the expected values of the second and fourth order
moments of the time simulations of R, Le.:
K E {R'1 1 [E {~}f (4)
For Morison wave loading per unit length of member the relationship between K and the kurtosis k is (see
Ref. 2 below):
4 2
10SK + 18K + 3
K
2 (Sa)
(3K + 1)2
or in the inverse form:
Notes to Figure C7.B.5

K (5b)
While K varies between 0 (inertia loading only) and infinity (drag loading only) K ranges from 3 to 35/3. It
may now be assumed that the same relationship holds for an arbitrary response variable R. Therefore, if
the kurtosis of R is know the corresponding drag-inertia parameter K can be determined. If this is done,
separate time domain Simulations for the standard deviations in blocks 9a and 9b are not required but the
route through block 93 cannot be follOWed. One enters the diagram in block 9c and must read CRs from
Figure C7.B.6 as per block 9d.
Both the kurtosis and the drag-inertia parameter may be subject to appreciable statistical variability and
their determination may require time domain simulations of substantial length; see Ref. 2 below.
Re blocks 9d and ge: Figure C7.B.6 (referred to in block 9d) is equivalent to the figure that was derived by Brouwers and
Verbeek and presented in Ref. 1 below as well as in Figure A1 of the SIPM - Practice (EP 89-0550).
However, this latter figure presented the ratio of the expected value of the extreme to the standard
deviation for a 1000 peaks, rather than the mpm-factor CR which is the ratio of the most probable
maximum value of the response to the standard deviation, which is used in this report. Therefore, Figure
C7.B.6 has been recalculated in accordance with Ref. 3 and now truly presents the mpm-factor CR. It
should be noted that the figure is valid for a narrow band process, the corresponding ratios for a broad
band process being somewhat smaller. Therefore, CR is a slightly conservative estimate for the mpm-
factor. This is in accordance with the general principles underlying a simplified engineering method and is
well within the accuracy of the overall procedure.
An altemative and practical method to estimate K is to apply the engineering assumption for estimating
the most probably maximum value of the dynamic response, as used in block 11 of Figure C7.B.4, to
separate responses due to hydrodynamic drag loading only and inertia loading only, replacing Rs from
block 9 and Ri from block 10, respectively. These two hydrodynamic loading components are fully
uncorrelated and so are the responses caused by them; hence the correlation coefficient r = O. Further,
the mpm-factor for a totally drag dominated Morison force is 8.0 and for a totally inertia dominated
Morison force it is 3.7. With these substitutions the ~uation in block 11 of Figure C7.B.4 becomes:
2
mpmR = =
{8.0 OR (Cm = 0)}2 + {3.7 OR (Cd O)}
For zero correlation the standard deviation of the overall response is obtained from the equation:
2
OR =
= {OR (Cm 0)}2 + {OR (Cd = 0)}2
(see note with block 7 of Figure C7.B.4).
These are the equations presented in block ge. The comments made with regard to conservatism
included in the route through block 9d remain equally valid here.
Its determination in block 9c could therefore, strictly speaking be avoided. The input of KRs into block 93
= =
of Figure C7.B.5 is symbolic, representing the implicit use through ORs (C m 0) and ORs (Cd 0), resulting
directly from blocks 9a and 9b. In practical applications it is recommended that both routes through block
9d and 93 are followed as a check on the calculations.
Reference 1:
J.J.H. Srouwers and P.H.J. Verbeek
"Expected fatigue damage and expected extreme response for Morison-type wave loading"
Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 5, No.3, 1983, pp. 129-133
Reference 2:
P.M. Hagemeijer
"Estimation of drag/inertia parameters using time-domain simUlations and the prediction of the extreme response"
Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 12, No.3, 1990, pp. 134-140.
Reference 3:
J.J.M. Saar
Extreme values of Morison-type processes"
Report EP 90-33365, October 1990.
To be published shortly in Applied Ocean Research
Notes to Figure C7.B.S (cont.)

~~
7 /
6
~
/
5
V
4
J
.......
3
0.01 0.1 1 10 K 100
The equation for the curve is Ref. 3, Specific notes with Fig. C7.B.5
3.72/.fA . CR < B (K < 0.135)
CR = If
(6.91+D)/C C R <B (K < 0.135)
Where A, B, C and D are functions ofk as follows:
A 3K2 + 1
B = 11 [(2K)~(3K2 +1) ]
C [ ~(3K2 + 1) } (2K)
D l/(8K2)
Figure C7.B.6 Ratio CB, of most probable maximum to standard deviation as a

function of drag-inertia parameter K for N = 1000 peaks
roD
- : S~(co)
- : Sn (co)
-- . SPI4(CO)
~
2
,
,,
,
,,
,
,,
,
I ",
,
,
,
,\ \ 1S=7s
\~
o
o 2 3 ro (radJs)
Figure C7.B.7 Comparison between the normalized spectra Sn(ro), Sm(ro) and S~(ro)
1. Parker G.J. (1997), 'Calibration of an SDOF-Based Dynamic Analysis Procedure Including

Non-Linear Foundation Fixity', Sixth International Conference The Jack-Up Platfonn,
Design Construction and Operation, City University, London.
CS COMMENTARIES TO ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
CS.O BACKGROUND TO PARTIAL LOAD FACTORS
CS.O.l General
Reliability analysis was used in the derivation of load effect factors which are presented
in the PRACTICE. All factors associated with strength or resistance have been derived
either from consensus (e.g. weight in overturning) within the JUWG or from other
relevant codes (e.g. AISC LRFD). The philosophy used in the derivation of the load
effect factors is discussed below. Further references on the technique etc. are given in
[1], [2], [3] and [4].
CS.O.2 Fundamental Question
When a jack-up is offered for operation at a marginal location, a number of issues such
as overturning stability, soil capacity and leg strength are addressed to ascertain the
fitness for purpose of the jack-up. In all these assessments, it is necessary to establish
an acceptable safety margin (or safety factor) between load and resistance. The
question is, how do we establish, quantitatively, the safety factor required for the
performance assessment?
CS.O.3 Solution
Loads and resistances are not uniquely defined due to physical, statistical and
methodological uncertainties. Acceptance of this fundamental principle has led to the
understanding that the use of safety factors merely assists in maintaining a level of
safety. Furthermore, the true goal of assessment is to achieve as consistent a level of
safety as possible when the safety factors are just satisfied. This demonstrates the need
to perform reliability analysis which would provide a framework to link the safety
factors to the safety levels. The various key stages of the analysis are described below:
CS.O.3.1 Probabilistic Description oflnput
The code calibration project was performed in two stages. In Stage 1, sensitivity
studies were performed to identify the key parameters which influence the response of a
jack-up [5], [6]. These showed that significant wave height (Hs), peak period (Tp), drag
diameter (CoD), tidal current (VT ) and the permissible interaction ratio for structural
elements were important items. The reliability studies, [2], showed that the
significance of Tp, CoD and VT was not critical and therefore the variability in these
parameters was ignored in Stage 2 studies, [3]. However, it was clear that the largest
value of the responses varied between different realizations of the same seastate and it
was therefore necessary to account for this variability. Thus in the final stages of the
study, Hs, the variability in the largest value in a storm and the permissible interaction
ratio were considered as variables. The following table summarizes the variables and
associated probability distributions used in Stage 2 studies [3]:
Parameter Distribution
Significant Waveheight, Hs Gumbel
Largest value in a storm Poisson
Permissible Interaction Ratio Log-normal
CS.0.3.2 Limit States
Three limit states, namely, overturning, preload and leg strength were considered.
These limit states are recognized to possess some degree of reserve of safety from
actual failure. As the PRACTICE is focused upon component failures, and target safety
levels were determined from average safety levels of exemplary rigs (see section
CS.0.3.5 below), reaching any of the selected limit states does not indicate "true"
failure. This is not significant to the code calibration.
CS.O.3.3 Response Model
A major objective of the JUWG has been to develop as comprehensive an analysis

method as possible which reflected the behavior of jack-ups in the elevated condition.
The developed method was applied to derive the response parameters required for the
reliability analysis. It must be noted that time domain analysis was performed in order
to properly capture all the non-linearities in jack-up loading and response. The
following table summarizes the key facts associated with the simulations and analysis
methodology:
• 0.5s time step used in simulations

• 3 hour simulations used for MPM
• 1 hour simulations with correction for response surfaces
• Hs increased by factor [1 + O.5e<-dl30)]*
• 75% of max. variable load used in reliability analysis
• P-Ll effects included
• Hull Sag and Flexibility included
• Pinned Foundations
• Initial leg inclination included in leg strength evaluation.
• Relative velocity Morison's equation used
• 4% critical damping (plus damping from above)
• Jonswap spectrum used
• Winterstein [7], Juncher Jensen [S] used for MPM .
* This is changed to [1 + 0.5e<-dl25)] in the current draft of the PRACTICE.
The following response model, which linked Hs to the safety index (or probability) of
exceeding the given limit state in that Hs was derived from three simulations with
different but large (near 50-year return) Hs:
f3 =A + B.Hs + C.H/
Once this link was established, then using the probability distribution of the annual
extremes of significant wave height, the probability of limit state exceedance in anyone
year (or the annual safety index) was computed.
CS.0.3.4 Safety Index vs. Safety Factor
By repeating the procedures described in CS.O.3.3 for different values of the resisting
quantities such as righting moment, permissible interaction ratio and preload a
rigllocation specific link between safety factor and safety index was generated (e.g. see
Figure CS.O.l). This then permitted the evaluation of the required safety factor for a
specified level of safety.
C8.0.3.5 Reference or Target Safety Level
No absolute target or reference safety level was imposed. Instead, the four rig/location
combinations which were, on average, considered to be close to the limit were analyzed
using reliability techniques and the target safety level obtained by averaging the
individual safety levels achieved by each rig. This process is described graphically in
Figure CS.O.l. The process was repeated for each of the limit states considered.
It is not possible to directly compare safety levels achieved by the exemplary rigs with
safety levels of other offshore structures. However, the safety levels achieved are
broadly comparable.
Average f3 used
as target
Safety Factor
Figure 8.0.1 : Link between safety factor and safety index m)

C8.0.3.6 Derivation/Calibration of Safety Factors
As noted in section C8.0.3.5, four exemplary rig/location combinations were analyzed

using reliability techniques. The reliability analysis was further extended to tropical
cyclone locations by simply modifying the statistical distribution of the environmental
parameters to reflect the greater variability. The spread in the safety index vs. safety
factor curves was shown to be due to the varying levels of dynamicity of the four
different rig/location combinations and the environmental variability between North
Sea and tropical cyclone locations.
The response quantities were split into quasi-static and dynamic components in order to
investigate the potential for reducing the spread in safety levels across rigs and
locations. The objective of the optimizing function was to minimize the squared
difference between the achieved safety index and the target safety index. This approach
did show a reduction in spread of safety levels with the use of partial factors, however,
as the initial safety index spread itself was small, the decision was taken to adopt a
single load factor which minimized the spread whilst maintaining the target safety level
as discussed in section C8.0.3.5.
CS.l STRUCTURAL STRENGTH CHECK
CS .1.1 Introduction
Code Basis
Currently, the most widely used codes for structural strength assessment for the
offshore industry are based on "working stress design". Examples of commonly used
codes are AISC ASD [9] and API RP2A [10]. Due to a number of inadequacies of
these codes, there has been a move by their authors to replace them with the "Load and
resistance factor design (LRFD)" approach. Although AISC and API allow use of both
the "working stress" and LRFD codes in parallel, it is their intention to phase out the
"working stress" methods in the future. To follow the trend in the industry, it was
decided that the structural strength assessment code to be used in the PRACTICE
should also be based on LRFD. Both the AISC LRFD [11] and API LRFD [12] codes
were reviewed as bases for jack-up structural assessment.
It was decided that the AISC LRFD should be used as the basis for the PRACTICE, for
the following reasons:
i) API LRFD covers tubular members thoroughly but refers the user to AISC LRFD
for non-tubular members. Since non-tubular members are commonly encountered
in jack-ups, AISC LRFD offers the greater applicability.
ii) Although a limit state code, the equations used in API LRFD are expressed in terms
of stresses and not loads. This would cause difficulties in the integration of AISC
LRFD with API LRFD for use in assessment computer programs for the non-tubular
cases (see (i)).
iii) A parametric study of the two codes for tubular members produced results for the
AISC LRFD equations (including the n exponent discussed below) similar to those
for the API LRFD code.
For analysis of a structure using the LRFD approach, it is necessary to define the
structure more comprehensively. Certain characteristics which occurred in jack-up
structures which could be fitted in with the AISC "working stress" codes had to be dealt
with specifically for AISC LRFD. Whether the treatment of these characteristics was
correct in the AISC "working stress" code was doubtful and hence the use of LRFD has
not created additional problems but has highlighted inadequacies of the previously
accepted codes. Particular points of concern include local buckling limit states, hybrid
beam-columns and biaxial bending.
For the PRACTICE it was desirable to produce a code simple to use, unambiguous and
as close as possible to AISC LRFD to avoid the need for validation. Except for the
sections on shell members, the code uses the same equations as given in AISC LRFD
apart from two areas of extension, relating to beam-column biaxial bending and hybrid
beam-columns, discussed below. For instance, the same ranges of Dlt ratios have been
used as specified in AISC to define the different ranges of limit state. These ranges
may not be instantly recognizable since they been given in terms of Rlt ratios in many
places. This is considered more appropriate for jack-up members which may contain
partial tubular sections for which a section radius is a more meaningful quantity than a
diameter.
Most sections are drawn from the numerous chapters and appendices in AISC LRFD
and are placed in a logical sequence. In some cases it has been necessary to interpret
which equations are applicable especially in the area of local buckling for beam-
columns.
AISC LRFD does not cover very high O/t ratio tubes and tubes with stiffeners, so
reference has been made to relevant sections of a different code. The "ONV Rules for
Classification - Fixed Offshore Installations" [13] was selected as the most suitable,
since this is a limit state code. This document refers the user to "ONV Classification
Notes - Note 30.1" [14] for obtaining member resistances or strengths. Some guidance
on the use of these notes is given in section C8.1.S.
Hybrid beam-columns
Hybrid beam-columns are quite common in jack-ups such as chords with high yield
stress racks welded to lower yield stress plate constructions. The treatment of hybrid
beams of this nature is not adequately covered in AISC LRFD and hence it has been
necessary to state rules dictating the method for establishing the axial and bending
strengths of such beam-columns. The methods described are based upon engineering
understanding of the problem and have been made as straight forward as possible.
Limitations
The first limitation, (a) has been stated as a warning that the code given in the
PRACTICE must be restricted to the type of geometries as described in section 8.1.4.
The intention has been to cover all of the geometries likely to be encountered in jack-
ups although there may be some exceptional cases. If this is so, the user must refer to
AISC LRFD [11]. One notable exception could be 'I' type sections which are
sometimes used in jack house frames. Since AISC LRFD is oriented towards the
assessment of 'I' type sections, it is reasonably straight forward to use. It is
recommended that the equations given in Appendix H are used for 'I' sections since
these should give less conservative results than the general equations in Chapter H.
The limitation (b) is stated in AISC LRFD [11] for the reasons that experimental
validation has not been carried out for steels with higher yield stresses than 100 k.sj.
The equations may not be valid for higher yield stresses although there does not appear
to be any theoretical reason for this to be the case. However, if higher yield stress steels
are to be assessed using the practice, it will be necessary to validate the equations for
whatever yield stress is used in the design. Currently steels with yield stresses greater
that 100 k.s.i. are not generally encountered in jack-ups with the exception of the
mechanical components in the holding system which are to be treated under other
assessment criteria.
CS.1.2 Definitions
Structural Members and Components
The definitions of members and components have been stated so that the appropriate
analysis method can be used for a particular type of geometry. The emphasis of the
assessment is on structural members, for which loads and properties must be known.
Components are assessed only when the section is identified as being prone to local or
lateral torsional buckling. This type of specification is in keeping with conventional
jack-up analysis procedures in which chord scantlings are modeled as single beams; the
modeling of the individual plates not being necessary.
CS.1.3 Factored Loads
The load factors used in AISC are inappropriate for jack-up analysis since these have
been derived for land based buildings. The derivation of load factors specific to jack-
ups is discussed in Section CS.O.
CS.l.4 Assessment of Members - excluding stiffened and high D/t ratio tubulars
CS.l.4.1 General interaction equations
The treatment of biaxial bending in AISC LRFD tends to be conservative for beam-
columns laterally supported at both ends. This is most apparent when assessing a
tubular member. The bending strength of the tube must be the same in all directions,
but this is not reflected in the AISC LRFD equations. The linear addition of x- and y-
axis bending moment terms in effect reduces the nominal bending strengths in all cases
of biaxial bending. For example, a tubular member subject to bending in a plane at 45°
to the x-axis has in the AISC LRFD code a nominal strength of 71 % of that for uniaxial
bending in the x- or y- planes.
The problem is not confined to tubulars, as most sections would have a reduction in
nominal strength on account of this linear addition. Only for 'I' sections does AISC
LRFD allow a more liberal formulation. In the AISC ASD formulation, such a problem
does not arise, as the stress points are considered explicitly.
Since optimal design is required for jack-ups, and since previous ASD-based design did
not suffer from this problem, it was considered necessary to remove the conservatism
for the PRACTICE. The general interaction equations have therefore been modified
from the AISC LRFD equations.
In deriving a suitable form the problem for the tubular was considered first. Clearly,
since the tubular has equal bending strength in all directions, the correct actual bending
moment should be the vectorial sum of the x- and y-axis bending moments. Expressed
as a unity check equation for bending only:
{ M }2 {M
_-,u:::.x_
(hMnx
+
<l>bMny
uy }2 < 10
_.
and with the addition of axial load (for Puf<l>aPn > 0.2)
[{.bMJ 2J- <10

{.bM,,} _.
P 8 M 2 Mu 2
_u_+_ ux + y
•• p, 9
Since most jack-up chords are closed sections with high torsional stiffnesses similar to
tubulars, the logical step was to formulate a similar equation which had the ability to
account for sections not exhibiting circular symmetry. This was carried out by using a
generalized exponent l'J to form the two equations given in the PRACTICE. One of the
equations is given below as an example (for Puf<l>aPn > 0.2). This resembles the
formulation in the AISC LRFD for I sections, although the exponent l'J has a different
determination procedure.
With l'J = 1.0, the equations revert to the standard AISC LRFD equations, and hence a
conservative assessment can be made. However, if the limit is required with more
accuracy, then it is necessary to determine the value for 11 (discussed later).
If the nominal bending strengths Mux and Muy are the same and 11 = 2.0, then this would
imply that the section has equal bending strength in all directions. A value to l'J = 00
implies that the bending capacities in the x- and y-axes are independent of each other.
Favorable interaction between, for example, the -Mx and +My moments acting on
triangular chords with a single rack cannot be reproduced by the above equation. In
such cases recourse to the section-specific interaction surface is recommended (see
Section CS.l.4.7).
C8.1.4.2 Nominal Axial Strength
C8.1.4.3
Whereas the nominal axial strength of tension members of one material are fully
catered for in the AISC LRFD code, some interpretation was required hybrid beam-
columns.
The basic measure of tensile strength is O.9Fyj, but in certain cases this value may be
unacceptably close to the ultimate strength. Therefore the provision is introduced that
the factored strength is the lesser of O.9Fyi and O.75Fui. This ensures that an acceptable
margin is applied to each component as illustrated in Figures C8.1.1 and C8.1.2.
stress
r----.(----0.9Fy i
-0.75Fui
st:rain ~-------------- strain
Figure C8.1.1 : ultimate strength Figure C8 .1.2 : yield strength

much bigger than yield strength close to ultimate strength
For hybrid members a nominal strength is required that takes into account the properties
of each component. If there is no likelihood of fracture of anyone component then an
addition of the nominal strengths of each component is appropriate for the member
(Figure C8.1.3.).
(c:tressj
component 1
Fnl ;----1' __---:{ component 2
max lowest strain strain

nominal level for
component component
strength fracture
Figure C8.1.3 : Stress/strain curves for two component member for which
addition of nominal strengths is permissible
However it is conceivable that fracture of one component may take place at a strain
level below that at which another component is loaded to its nominal strength
(Figure CS.1.4.).
stress
x. component 1
I
I
component 2
I I
I I
component max nominal
fracture component
strength
Figure CS.l.4 : Stress/strain curves for two component member in which
one component fractures before the other is loaded to its nominal
strength.
For such an eventuality it is stipulated that the strength of the whole section is that for
the weakest component, applied across the whole section, so that:
=
Pn FminLAj
This formulation is suitable when component materials are similar. When material
properties differ widely from component to component then the formulation may be
over conservative, and a rational analysis may be preferred. An example follows.
Example
Consider a member in tension. The section consists of a rectangular portion of steel 1

sandwiched between two rectangular portions of steel 2. The areas occupied by steels 1
and 2 are both half the total section area A. By symmetry the section is balanced.
stress !';t:ndn 1 eve 1 s

r- for component
component 1 xl fracture
p
IT
II II 1
I I
I I
~--1-----Ir-X COllponen L. 2
~n2--- I I I
I I I
.£ 1 .£ I I I
strain
11
p
Figure CS.l.5 : Stress/strain curves for

components of example member
Consider the portion of steel 1 as component 1 and the portions of steel 2 as component
2. The stress/strain plots of the materials (Figure CS.1.5.) show that the strain level for
component 1 to reach its nominal strength is well below that for fracture of 2. The
ductility of 2 means that the component can support a stress of just over Fn2 for strains
up to those at which component 1 reaches its nominal capacity. Therefore, a less
conservative nominal strength for the member is:
P n = FnIAl2 + Fn2A12
Because the section is balanced, plastic deformation of 2 does not induce any extra
loads or moments on the member. Were the section not balanced, then this would not
be true. It is essential that such aspects are considered in a rational analysis of strength.
CS.1.4.4 Effective Applied Moment

CS.1.4.5
The PRACTICE allows for structural analyses of a range of levels of sophistication. In
some, it may be necessary to manipulate the calculated moment to produce a more
"true" value for application in the PRACTICE. This leads to the use of the effective
applied moment for members with compressive axial loads. Adjustments for tensile
axial loads are not considered significant.
It has been noted that the P-~ effect produces an extra moment on a leg under hull
sway, and that this moment should be included in the structural analysis. The similar,
local P-~ effect on the individual members of truss leg must also be included, directly
in the structural analysis, or by use of the B term. If for a truss, the structural analysis
includes the local P-~ effect then no manipulation is required. If the local P-~ is not
included, for example through a linear elastic analysis of the leg segment, then the
amplifier B is required. For many non-truss leg cases there is no local P-~ effect, such
as for a jack-up with large diameter tubular legs.
The use of the single B term differs from that in the AISC LRFD code. There, the first
order moment is separated into two parts: a moment assuming no lateral deflection of
the frame Mnb and a moment attributed only to lateral deflection MIt. Then the effective
applied moment is the sum of BIMnt and B2Mlt , where BI is similar to B in the
PRACTICE ~md B2 is a second coefficient. It is important to note that both these
moments are first order, and do not include P-~. The use of BI and B2 is to simulate the
P-~ effects at local and global level respectively.
Therefore, in the PRACTICE the calculated applied moment is not the same as the Mu
in the AISC LRFD code. The use of
Mue=B Mu
performs the necessary step of adding the local P-~ moment to the calculated moment
which already includes global P-~.
Note that in a plastic analysis, yielding can take place within the members and bending
moments can hence be redistributed. The types of analysis to be used for the structural
assessment of jack-ups are to be elastic analyses where yielding does not take place, so
this aspect is not covered. For reference, AISC LRFD states their code is only valid for
plastic analysis if material yield stresses do not exceed 65 k.s.i.
C8.1.4.6 Nominal Bending Strength
The calculations of nominal bending strength for compact and noncompact sections
require knowledge of the plastic moment capacity of the section. For a section
composed of uniform material this is given by the lesser of:
Mp=FyZ
and
Mp =5/6FuZ
where Z is the plastic section modulus. For hybrid sections there is more than one set
of material properties to consider. Standard techniques are recommended for evaluation
of Mp and an example is provided below.
Example
Consider the simplified problem of a square rack section (component 1) of properties:

FyI = 700 MN/m2
Ful = 828 MN/m 2 ; Fy' = 828 x 5/6 = 690 MN/m2
connected to a solid square chord section (component 2) of properties:
Fy2 = 345 MN/m2
Fu2 = 485 MN/m2 Fy' = 485 x 5/6 = 404 MN/m 2
as shown in Figure C8.1.6 below. The nominal strengths are the lesser of the Fyi and
5/6Fuj, namely:
component 1 strength = 690 MN/m2
component 2 strength = 345 MN/m2
Dimensions are as marked.
z
O.lm
o. 400m----+-~~-r-r-
a.300m
O.3m
O.aOOm --L-I--+--r--~ stre s·s

0.3m 345 690 (MN/m2)
Figure C8.1.6 Example Figure C8.1.7 Fully plastic
hybrid chord section stress distribution
On the assumption that the strain for component 1 to be loaded to its nominal strength
is not sufficient to lead to fracture of component 2, the plastic stress distribution for
pure bending is as shown in Figure C8.1.7. The Plastic Neutral Axis is a distance Zo
from the back face of the chord component, such that:
345 x 0.3 x Zo = 345 x 0.3 x (O.3-zo) + 690 x 0.1 x 0.1
i.e.
Zo = 0.183 m
The section plastic moment is then:
Mp = 345 x 0.3 x 0.183 x (0.183/2)
+ 345 x 0.3 x 0.117 x (0.117/2)
+ 690 x 0.1 x 0.100 x (0.117 + 0.100/2) = 3.59 MNm
CS.1.4.7 Detennination of n I
Determination of the correct value of 11 is carried out by calculation of the nominal
strength of the member about axes other than the x-and y-axes. This can be done in the
normal manner based on the effective plastic section modulq.s with reductions for local
buckling if applicable. Although a beam will not necessarily bend in the same plane as
the applied moment when the bending plane is at an angle to the orthogonal axes, it is
not expected that the capacity will be greatly affected.
Once the nominal bending strength has been calculated for a few angles between the x-
and y-axes, the value for 11 can be calculated using the graphical procedure given in the
practice, or by an iterative procedure. A successful iterative procedure was found to be
by the use of the coupled equations, setting a = M'uexlMnx and b = M'ue/Mny:
In(l- bTJi)
11i+l = Ina
with the accelerating step:
11i+2 = 0.5(11i+l + 11i)
and the initial value 11 = 1.5.
The three angles which were chosen, 30°,45° and 60° give a good spread over the 90°
range. It is not the intention to fit a curve through all the values from the three angles
but merely find the lowest value to 11. This may still make the equation conservative
although considerably less so than for 11 =1.0.
Plastic Interaction Curve Approach

Alternatively, interaction equations and curves for generic families of chords are
presented in Figures CS.1.S - eS.1.l1. The offset distance between the elastic centroid
II
(used in the structural analysis) and the 'center of squash', together with other geometric
data for the members of each family of chord is presented in Tables CS.1.1 to CS.1.4.
CS.1.5 Assessment of Members - other geometries
For high D/t ratio tubulars, reference is made to the DNV Rules for Fixed Offshore
Installations, as these are based on a suitable LRFD format. Care must be taken to
adapt the usage factors in the Rules to the correct resistance factor format.
The buckling strength of shells is best described in terms of buckling stress. For this
reason, the stress to cause buckling in the shell must be determined and compared with
the stresses caused by the factored loads. Since the analysis model usually gives the
overall member loads, it is necessary to calculate the stresses in the shell. It may be
possible, with caution, to allow the analysis model to also calculate membrane stresses.
The detailed stress formulations in the DNV Class note 30.1 are amenable to some
simplification. For example, the pressure loading terms may usually be omitted, since
high D/t tubulars in jack-up legs are generally flooded.
For beam-column interaction, the effects from global axial buckling are added to the
effects of local buckling due to flexural bending. Global buckling effects in bending
such as lateral-torsional buckling only occur in sections in which the stiffness out of
plane is less than the stiffness in the plane of bending. Thus tubular and rectangular
sections, hollow or otherwise, in which the depth is less than or equal to the width do
not suffer lateral torsional buckling.
_-+_ _ +~y~~ve My
Strength Interaction Equations
{( ~J +(::JT ~lOO
For (pIPy) ~ 0.6: M p< = hlp. { co{ r
~:, )
Mpy = Mo+o{;:,)r
For (PlPy) > 0.6: M p< = 1.71Mp. (1- :, )
M py = 1.39Mpy ( 1- :, )
Figure CS.l.S Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords

with double central racks.
Chord Dimensions - Tubular Chord with Central Double Racks
L2. t2. Fy2
All dimensions are in millimeters, Yield Stresses are in MPa

<--- Yield --->
Stress
Design L1 t1 L2 t2 D t3 Fy1 Fy2 Fy3 Bay Ht
BMC JU-300-CAN (Zapata Scotian) 991 127 o o 914 44 690 0 690 5532
48
CFEM T2001 (Hitachi Redesign) 960 18 121 140 960 52 690 690 690 4500 Btm 3 bays
34 4100 Top 3 bays
26 4050 Middle bays
34
42
CFEM T2005 650 20 108 140 800 28 700 685 650 or 5050
30 700'
31
32
33
35
36
38
40 700 685 700
44
34 700 685 650
38
42
• Note: Early CFEM T2005 designs use 650 MPa steel for tube, later designs use 700 MPa steel.
... continued
Table eg.1.! Data for tubular chords with double central racks
<--- Yield --->

Stress
Design L1 t1 L2 t2 D t3 Fy1 Fy2 Fy3 Bay Ht
CFEMT2600 650 20 120 140 800 33 700 700 700 6000

35
38
40
41
43
45
47
49
50
51
52
55
56
57
58
MODEC200 450 15 102 127 559 27 490 690 490 5486
27
MODEC300 450 25 102 127 559 34 490 690 490 5486
28 34
15 40
20 40
27 40
60 40
115 40
MODEC 400 (Trident 9) 690 20 102 127 800 30 490 690 490 6200
20 35
35 35
Hitachi K1025/31/32 900 18 100 127 900 32 690 690 690 5160
18 36
18 50
20 40
20 42
Hitachi K1026 (Neddrill4) 950 18 100 127 950 32 690 690 690 4360
18 36
20 42
Hitachi K105617 1000 28 130 178 1000 47 690 730 690 4600
30 50
30 52
30 60
30 64
60 60
60 64 4000
ETA Robray 300 (Asia Class) 627 10 127 127 762 22 690 690 690 5486
11
13
14
16
17
19
25
32
ETA Europe Class 627 38 140 140 762 22 690 690 690 5486
51
64
76
89
102
114
127
Table CS.l.1 (Continued} Data for tubular chords with double central racks
N
-,
'-
1
o·
i
I.~
'""i
v~-~~--litT-y-j- + ve My
Strength Interaction Eguations
P J2.25
where; M'px = M px ( 1 -P -
y
P J1.85
M'py = M py 1 -P -
(
y
Figure C8.1.9 Interaction equations/curves for split tubular chords

with double central racks.
Chord Dimensions - Split Tubulars with Double Central Racks
D
..
Hi
~ _ _ Ll, tl. Fyl

t3
H2

Yield
Stress
Design L1 t1 D 12 t3 L4 t4 Y1 H1 H2 Fy1 Fy2 Bay Ht
F & G L780 (Lower bays) 400 152 381 25 25 0 0 0 191 165 621 690 3658
F & G L780 (Upper bays) 400 127 381 25 25 0 0 0 191 191 621 450 3658
F & G L780 m2 (Lower bays) 400 152 381 32 32 0 0 0 191 165 621 690 3658
F & G L780 m2 (Upper bays) 400 127 381 32 32 0 0 0 191 191 621 517 3658
F & G L780 m5 (Monitor) 401 178 381 81 57 0 0 51 178 178 690 690 4267
F & G L780 m5 (Monarch) 401 178 381 81 51 0 0 51 178 178 690 690 4267
F & G L780 m6 611 178 584 83 38 0 0 95 292 292 690 690 5486
MSC CJ62 (Lower bays) 650 210 600 65 48 0 0 75 270 270 690 690 6927
MSC CJ62 (Upper bays) 650 210 600 55 40 0 0 75 270 270 690 690 6927
MSC CJ50 (1) 550 210 520 25 25 0 0 0 260 260 690 690 5608
MSC CJ50 (2) 550 210 520 25 35 0 0 0 260 260 690 690 5608
Technip TPG 500 (1) 722 160 680 75 61 0 0 20 340 340 690 540 6000
Technip TPG 500 (2) 722 160 680 75 37 0 0 55 340 340 690 540 6000
Technip TPG 500 (3) 722 160 680 62 37 0 0 36 340 340 690 540 6000
Technip TPG 500 (4) 722 160 680 58 37 0 0 30 340 340 690 540 6000
Technip TPG 500 (5) 722 160 680 50 37 0 0 19 340 340 690 540 6000
Technip TPG 500 (6) 722 160 680 50 37 510 30 19 340 340 690 540 6000
Table CS.l.2 Data for split tubular chords with double central racks
-I.Z
I +ve Mx
{(:.J +(::Jf $1.00
where; M'" = ~+ r} -(:,

WhenMx~O: ~ = 18 + 2{ :, ) + ~ :,
P ) 1.12 } 111.12
r-
5.{ :, )'
and M'px = Mpx 1- -

{ ( Py
When Mz<O: ~ = 1.8
and for (PlPy) ~ 0.25: M 'px - -Mpx
for (PlPy) > 0.25: M 'px --

-~+-(O.7~Py -~r}
Figure C8.1.10 Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords
with offset double racks.
Tubular Chords with Offset Double Racks
L2
Fy2
Ll
<--- Yield --->

Stress
Design D t1 L1 L2 t2 t3 Fy1 Fy2 Fy3 Bay Ht Yena Ycos E
Levingston 011-C 914 29 305 906 127 0 483 621 0 4826 84 100 16
33 75 90 15
Levingston 111 1016 32 305 1047 127 0 690 690 0 4877 73 73 0
35 68 68 0
Mitsui JC-300 (Key Hawaii) 1016 32 305 1046 127 0 690 690 0 5650 78 78 0
34 0
35 66 66 0
Mitsui 100ft (Key Bermuda) 1016 29 305 1046 127 0 690 690 0 4672 0 Most of leg
1016 29 305 1046 127 0 690 690 0 5050 0 Towage Section
32 5050 73 73 0 ..
36 5050 66 66 0
Hitachi Drill-Hope 762 30 190 882 127 0 690 690 0 5500 57 57 0
32 55 55 0
Hitachi C-150 (lie Du Levant) 762 30 190 890 130 0 690 690 0 5500 60 60 0
Hitachi K1040/44/45 900 30 300 882 127 0 690 690 0 4800 77 77 0 Btm 2 bays
30 5090 77 77 0 Rest of leg
35 5090
42 5090 60 60 0
Hitachi K1060 (Sagar Lakshmi) 900 30 300 854 127 13 690 690 690 5260 84 84 0
31 0
32 0
34 77 77 0
Robc0350-C 876 29 292 881 127 0 690 690 0 5461 83 83 0 Btm 3 bays
876 38 68 68 0
.
864 29 89 89 0 Rest of Leg
864 32 82 82 0
Table CS.l.3 Data for tubular chords with offset double racks
xPy
{(~':I::=~r +(:.JT
ro.{:,)'
$100
where; K= ~{ :, ) + o.{ :, +
and M'~=Mpy{l-( :,r}

When (M,fMpJ H: M'" = M p +-(:,f}
and ~= 1.45
When (M,IM,J < K: ,+ -(:,r'" f04

M' po< = - M p
and~= 145 +23{ :,) +4.{:, r

Figure e8.l.11 Interaction equations/curves for triangular chords
with single racks
~g
g.~
13, tJ,Fy3 ::::.:~
~ ~
IA,t4,Fy4
~§
(') ""t
~ ~.
~'"
~ ~
~
~
......
~
n
I
Y2
t6
Fy6
R Yi
....~~
~
~I::)
~
N~
~
(')
§
00 ~ ;::s
1 ~~
......
~ § ~
t:1 N~
Pl o~
S' Chord Dimensions - Triangular Chords with Single Rack
>-+>
i.-Xl---J ::3p.....
(')
g All dimensions are in millimeters, Yield Stresses are in MPa ~
8". <-------- Yield Stress --------> ~

§ Design l1 l2t1 t2 l3 t3 l4 t4 l5 t5 t6 X1 Y1 Y2 Y3 Fy1 Fy2 Fy3 Fy4 Fy5 Bay Ht Yena Ycos E ""t
V)
-
JQ
C ~.
~ Marlet Standard (3/4" side plates) 711 51 466 19 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 483 483 587 0 0 3408 259 279 20
n Marlet Standard (7/8" side plates) 711 51 466 22 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 483 483 587 0 0 3408 259 279 20 ~
~
5" Marlet Standard (1" side plates) 711 51 466 25 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 483 483 587 0 0 3408 260 279 19 (')
a Marlet Standard (1.5" side plates) 711 51 466 38 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 483 483 587 0 0 3408 262 279 17 '5i
(')
rJ> Marlet Standard + side stiffeners 711 51 466 19 213 127 0 0 127 25 0 236 457 0 211 483 483 587 0 483 3408 260 279 19
~
::E Marlet Std 116 (1 "x4" rack stiffeners) 711 51 466 19 213 127 102 25 0 0 0 236 457 524 0 483 483 587 483 0 3408 278 296 18
::+. Marlet 116 North Sea (1 "x4"+ 1"x12" stifnrs) 711 51 466 19 213 127 102 25 305 25 0 236 457 524 118 483 483 587 483 483 3408 276 291 15 '"'"
~
~
; Marlet 116 (1"x4"+1.5"x12" stifnrs) 711 51 466 19 213 127 102 25 305 38 0 236 457 524 124 483 483 587 483 483 3408 277 291 14
..... Marlet 116 Juneau (2"x4"+ 1"x12" stifnrs) 711 51 466 19 213 127 102 51 305 25 0 236 457 524 118 483 483 587 483 483 3408 290 304 14
~ Marlet Gorilla (150-88) 813 76 573 57 222 140 0 0 0 0 0 248 600 0 0 483 483 620 0 0 5113 302 323 21 ~
;::s
(i' Marlet Super 300 813 76 607 38 222 140 0 0 0 0 0 268 600 0 0 483 483 620 0 0 5113 298 323 25 .....
~ 813 76 607 38 222 140 0 0 305 51 0 268 600 0 296 483 483 620 0 483 5113 327 346 19 .Q,
n Marlet 300 Slant 711 64 441 38 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 218 457 0 0 414 414 414 0 0 2556 245 245 0
~ leToumeau 150 (3/4" side pi) 711 51 466 19 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 414 414 620 0 0 2556 259 302 43
LeTourneau 150 (1.125" side pi) 711 51 466 29 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 414 414 620 0 0 2556 259 303 44
LeTourneau 150 (1.5" side pi) 711 51 466 38 213 127 0 0 0 0 0 236 457 0 0 414 414 620 0 0 2556 262 298 26
LeTourneau 46,47 559 44 432 13 178 89 0 0 0 0 0 166 432 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 3408 224 224 0
LeTourneau 4,9 559 51 565 13 197 102 0 0 0 0 0 178 533 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 3430 286 286 0
Mitsubishi MD-T76J 750 50 574 25 225 125 0 0 0 0 0 226 575 0 0 687 687 687 0 0 3456 315 315 0
Gusto 1-off: (Maersk Endeavour) 800 60 592 30 283 127 0 0 0 0 0 359 443 0 0 620 620 620 0 0 4800 284 284 0
800 90 534 40 283 127 0 0 0 0 0 331 443 0 0 620 620 620 0 0 4800 255 255 0
Gusto 1-off: (Maersk Explorer)

800
800
110
76
488
535
50
38
283
279
127
127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
307
337
443
453
0
0
0
0
620 620
690 690
620
690
0
0
0
0
4800
4539
244
268
244
268
0
0 o?
~
800
800
64
51
549
562
38
32
279
279
127
127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
344
351
453
453
0
0
0
0
690 690
690 690
690
690
0
0
0
0
4539
4539
282
297
282
297
0
0
.....
00
800 51 562 29 279 127 0 0 0 0 0 351 453 0 0 690 690 690 0 0 4539 297 297 0 tJ.J
BMC 1-off design (Trident 7) 711 38 356 19 279 127 0 0 0 0 25 264 204 0 0 ? ? ? 0 0 3353 197 197 0
C8.3 FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT
The intention of the foundation capacity checks of steps 1 and 2 (Sections 8.3.1 and
8.3.2/8.3.3 of the PRACTICE) is to safeguard against foundation failure. Foundation
failure will, in most cases, manifest itself through excessive spudcan vertical and/or
horizontal displacements which may cause local or global instability of the jack-up.
Local instability occurs when a leg becomes overstressed, with global instability as a
consequential effect. Global instability may occur through overturning which will then
cause leg overstress. The key to preventing either type of failure mode is to safeguard
against excessive spudcan displacements.
Since it is difficult to accurately compute the displacements (as proposed in Step 3,

Section 8.3.4 of the PRACTICE, the checks of steps 1 and 2 are performed by
comparing the bearing capacity with the extreme combinations of load, including
applicable partial factors. In steps 1 and 2a the loads are computed assuming pinned
footings. In step 2b the check allows for fixity.
Selection ofthe Resistance Factors (j)

The resistance factor is intended to cover uncertainties in the estimation of the bearing
capacity. In foundation engineering it is common to adopt in the range 111.25 - 1/1.30
(0.80 - 0.77) when the capacity is determined on the basis of available soil data and
analytical predictions. For a jack-up there is however additional information available
in terms of the preload applied at installation, which generally justifies the use of a
higher resistance factor.
During preloading the spudcan foundation experiences loading similar, but not identical
to the conditions of the leeward leg during the extreme event. Taking this information
into account, there is greater certainty in the upper part of the bearing capacity curve
applicable to bearing failure than in the lower part applicable to sliding failure.
However, some uncertainty still remains for the foundation capacity in bearing
applicable to the leeward leg determined from the preload value. This uncertainty is
due to factors such as:
effect of cyclic loading
effects of consolidation and creep
loading rate effects
There is at present insufficient information available to fully quantify the likely
distribution in the actual foundation capacity curve. In the study performed by NGI
[17] it is concluded that cyclic degradation effects on clay are significantly larger for the
leeward leg than for the windward leg. It is also noted that the case of a spudcan which
has not penetrated sufficiently to mobilize the maximum available bearing area should
be differentiated from the case where the maximum bearing area is utilized. This is
because in the former case a small additional penetration will lead to a increase in
capacity as a result of the increase in bearing area.
On the basis of the above arguments the following resistance factors are proposed:
Step la - preload, vertical load alone:

<1>=0.9 See note overleaf
Note: Section 8.3.1.4 of the PRACTICE requires that the vertical and horizontal load
check of step 2a is made when the horizontal leg reaction at the leeward leg
exceeds prescribed limits, depending on the penetration and soil. This is
because the simplistic check in Step 1a is based on the proven ultimate vertical
bearing capacity during preloading and it is therefore assumed that the extreme
footing load is the same as the maximum footing load during preloading. This
implies that the horizontal loading on the spudcan under extreme conditions is
small and it is therefore appropriate to limit the combined horizontal and
vertical loading to the values permitted under Step 2. In the selection of the
limits for Step 1a two penetration cases can be distinguished:
full embedment to maximum bearing area in foundation layer,
partial embedment in the foundation layer.
For full spudcan embedment in sand the lateral soil resistance at a vertical load
of O.9VLo is approximately O.03VLo. Additional penetration may increase the
soil resistance, but to increase the horizontal resistance to O.lVLo the additional
penetration will be in the order of 10% of the spudcan diameter and outside
tolerable limits.
In the case of partial penetration of the spudcan in sand (i.e., full bearing area
not mobilized), any additional penetration will result in a significant increase of
bearing capacity due to the rapid increase in the bearing area. An increase in
embedded area of approximately 10% will increase the horizontal capacity to
O.lVLo·
In clayey soils the requirement of QH < 0.1 V10 is met if the ratio of the spudcan
laterally projected area to bearing area, AsiA is in the order of 0.3.
Step 1b - sliding, vertical and horizontal load vector:
</>Hfc = 0.8 (effective stress - sand/drained)
= 0.64 (total stress - clay/undrained)
Step 2a - bearing, vertical and horizontal load vector:
vH = 0.9 (maximum bearing area not mobilized)
= 0.85 (maximum bearing area mobilized)
Step 2b - vertical, horizontal and moment load vector:
<l>vHM = <l>vH from step 2a for leeward legs
= <!>Hfc from step 1b for windward legs
Selection of safety factors against punch-through
Where the potential for punch-through foundation failure is recognized, detailed
consideration regarding foundation integrity will be required. Methods have been
proposed for punch-through installation procedures and acceptability criteria but are
omitted from this document as they remain ambiguous, (Rapaport [18], Senner [19]).
Some jack-up designs are more able to tolerate rapid leg penetration than others and if
the magnitude of the potential leg plunge is acceptable then installation could be
possible even though punch-through is predicted during preloading. Significant
investigation will be required in such circumstances and it is recommended that each
potential punch-through situation is assessed on its own merit both at preloading and,
should the potential for punch-through remain after installation, for the elevated
operational and survival conditions.
Commentaries to Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Page lS6
CS.7 STRUCTURE CONDITION ASSESSMENT
CS.7.1 Introduction
Where an on-site structural inspection is required Section CS.7.2 provides guidance as

to how this may be carried out. Section CS.7.3 provides guidance on monitoring the
structural condition during an assignment.
CS.7.2 Scope of Condition Assessment
The aim of a condition assessment is to verify the condition of the structural

components and details that are essential for the ultimate strength of the jack-up in the
elevated condition and to confirm that the condition of the jack-up structure is in line
with the assumptions made in the site specific analysis. Structural details to be assessed
can be identified based on general considerations (see [20]), or on the results of site
specific calculations and/or fatigue considerations.
Condition assessment may comprise four steps with increasing involvement as

described below. It is necessary that step 1 should always be completed and steps 2, 3
and 4 should be carried out as necessary to validate the condition of the jack-up.
Step 1 - Review of existing records

The review should initially cover the existing certificates and operating/inspection
records. These should provide details of any incidents (indications of damage and
subsequent repairs).
Step 2 - Visual inspection

A general visual inspection is carried out to confirm the rig is in a good state of repair
and well maintained. The inspection should focus on the critical structural components
and will include checks for missing members, mechanical damage, corrosion, etc.
Normally this will only cover above water areas and should include a selection of the
fatigue sensitive areas listed in Section 7.4.4.
The visual inspection may be carried out by the same team visiting the unit for a pre-
contract inspection (safety, drilling, etc.). However it is required that qualified
personnel should be part of that team.
Step 3 - Close Visual inspection

Close visual inspection of key structural areas may be required if the condition can not
be validated based on the review of existing records (step 1) and the general visual
inspection (step 2). Hence the close visual inspection should focus on specific areas or
details that may be in doubt.
If fatigue is a consideration, it is recommended that, following steps 1 and 2, a selection

of the fatigue sensitive areas should be subjected to close visual inspection. These close
visual (weld) inspections should cover a number oflocations from each of the groups of
fatigue sensitive areas identified in Section 7.4.4. This should possibly be followed
with an MPI inspection as outlined below.
C8.7.2 Step 4 - Detailed inspection
Detailed inspection may be required in special cases and in case of inconclusive

findings after completion of the three steps above. The detailed inspection is seen as a
continuation of the visual inspection and hence is aimed at confirming that the
condition of some specific details are sound for the intended operation. The major
concern is the ultimate strength of the unit. Local damage with no significance for the
planned mode of operation need not be assessed, but should be recorded for inclusion in
future maintenance work.
The scope of the inspection may include some NDT (e.g. MPI) and these inspections
must be carried out by qualified personnel. The NDT will normally cover areas of
specific concern. It may also be necessary to provide some spot checks of fatigue
sensitive areas. In this case it is recommended that MPI checks should, as a minimum,
be made at a selection of areas from each of the groups of fatigue sensitive locations
identified in Section 7.4.4.
If defects are found it may be necessary to expand the scope of the inspection so that the
full extent of the damage can be assessed.
C8.7.3 Condition Monitoring
The condition of the jack-up structure should be monitored during the assignment. This
is to ensure the continuation of the overall structural integrity during the operations. The
requirements for condition monitoring may be based on the approach outlined in steps 1
through 4 above. The operating and maintenance records kept by the owner are the
primary source of input for the independent condition monitoring and it should be
possible to validate the condition of the unit by reviewing these records at any time
during the operation. It is not expected that, for normal operations, the scope of the
condition monitoring should extend beyond step 1.
It is noted that records should be kept for future reference.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS FOR SECTION C
a = M'uexlMnx used in detennination of 11.

A = constant in quadratic expression for~.
A = cross sectional area.
A = effective spudcan bearing area based on cross-section taken at uppermost part of
bearing area in contact with the soil.
Ai = cross sectional area of component i.
As = laterally projected embedded area of spudcan.
b = M'ueylMny used in detennination of 11.
B = constant in quadratic expression for ~.
B = moment amplification factor.
Bl = moment amplification factor applicable to M nt.
B2 = moment amplification factor applicable to Mit.
C = constant in quadratic expression for ~.
CoD = product of drag coefficient and associated diameter.
d = water depth (m).
D = diameter of tubular member.
Fmin = strength of weakest component.
Fnl = nominal strength of component 1.
Fn2 = nominal strength of component 2.
FUi = material ultimate strength for component i.
Fy = material yield strength.
F'Y = effective material yield strength =5FJ6.
Fyi
FI
F2
=
=
=
material yield strength for component i.
factor used in computer axial capacity for plastic interaction.
factor used in computer moment capacity for plastic interaction.
I
Hs = significant wave height.
K = parameter in chord strength interaction relationship.
Ll,L2,etc. = length of chord component 1,2, etc.
MIt = moment attributed only to lateral deflection.
Mnt = moment excluding lateral deflection.
Mnx = nominal bending strength about member x-axis.
Mny = nominal bending strength about member y-axis.
Mp = plastic moment capacity.
Mpx = plastic moment capacity about member x-axis.
Mpy = plastic moment capacity about member y-axis.
M'px = effective allowable x-axis bending capacity used in strength interaction
equations.
M'py = effective allowable y-axis ending capacity used in strength interaction equations.
Mu = applied bending moment.
Mue =
Mux,Muex=
Muy,Muey=
effective applied bending moment.
effective applied bending moment about member x-axis.
effective applied bending moment about member y-axis.
I
Mx = applied bending moment about member x -axis.
My = applied bending moment about member y-axis.
P,Pu = applied axial load.
Pn = nominal axial strength.
Py = axial yield strength.
t = wall thickness of tubular member.

tl,t2,etc. = thickness of chord component 1, 2, etc.
Tp = peak period associated with Hs.
VT = tidal current velocity.
zo = distance between plastic neutral axis and back face of chord.
Z = plastic section modulus.
f3 = safety index.
~ = exponent in chord strength interaction relationship.
11 = exponent in bending interaction relationship.
<l> = resistance factor.
<l>a = resistance factor for axial load.
<l>t, = resistance factor for bending.
<!>Hfe = foundation resistance factor - sliding.
<l>vH = foundation resistance factor - bearing under the action of vertical and horizontal
loads.
<l>vHM = foundation resistance factor - bearing under the action of vertical, horizontal and
moment loads.
1 Ahilan RV., Baker M.J., Hoyle M.J.R and Robinson N.J., "Reliability Based Development
of Jack-up Assessment Criteria". Presented at the Tenth Structures Congress (ASCE), San
Antonio, Texas, April 13-15, 1992.
2 Noble Denton Consultancy Services Limited. "Jack-up Assessment Criteria", Stage 1

Report, L15709INDCSIRVA (Rev. 2) London, dated 28th February 1992.
3 Noble Denton Consultancy Services Limited. "Jack-up Assessment Criteria", Stage 2

Report, L16268INDCSIRVA (Rev. 1), London, dated 8th January 1993.
4 Ahilan RV., Baker M.J. and Snell RO., "Development of Jack-up Assessment Criteria
using Probabilistic Methods". OTC7305, Houston, Texas, 1993.
5 Noble Denton Consultancy Services Limited. "Jack-up Assessment Criteria - Interim Scope
of Work Items 1.1 to 1.4 on Reliability Analysis". Report No. L15323INDCSIRVA (Rev.
2) London, dated 4th March 1991.
6 Noble Denton Consultancy Services Limited. "Jack-up Assessment Criteria - Statement of

Variable Selection". Report No. L15670INDCSIRVA (Rev. 0), London, dated 12th
September 1991.
7 Winterstein, S. "Nonlinear Vibration Models for Extremes and Fatigue", J. Engineering

Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 114, October 1988.
8 Juncher Jensen J., "Dynamic Amplification of Offshore Steel Platform Responses due to
Non-Gaussian Wave Loads", Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and Mechanics
Report No. 425, May 1991.
9 Manual of Steel Construction - Allowable Stress Design - Ninth Edition, AISC, 1989.
10 Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore

Platforms - API RP2A, Eighteenth Edition, 1 Sept 1989.
11 Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, 1
Sept 1986.
12 Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design API RP2A - LRFD First Edition, 1 Sept
1989.
13 Rules for Classification - Fixed Offshore Installations, Det Norske Veritas H'vik, July
1991.
14 Buckling strength analysis of Mobile Offshore Units - Classification Notes- Note 30.1,
H'vik, October 1987.
15 Dyer A.P., "Plastic Strength Interaction Equations for Jack-Up Chords", MSc Thesis, Dept
of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Nov. 1992.
16 Duan L., Chen W.-F., "A Yield Surface Equation for Doubly Symmetrical Sections",
Engineering Structures, Vol 12, pp. 114-119, April 1990.
17 Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, "Cyclic Effects on Bearing Capacity and Stiffness for
Jack-Up Platforms on Clay', Report 913012-1, May 1992.
18 Rapaport V., Alford J., (1987) "Pre-loading of Independent Leg Units at Locations with
Difficult Seabed Conditions." Conference title: Recent developments in jack-up platfonns
- design, construction and operation. The City University, London.
19 Senner D.W.F., (1992) "Analysis of Long Tenn Jack-up Rig Foundation Perfonnance."
Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behavior. SUT International Conference,
London.
20 Sliggers P.G.F., "SIPM Practice for Site Specific Structural Fitness for Purpose Assessment
of Jack-Up Rigs", Paper 21979, SPElIADC Conference, Amsterdam, 11-14th March 1991.
This page is intentionally left blank
EXAMPLE ("GO-BY") CALCULATIONS USING
PRELIMINARY ISSUE MAY 1994

Preliminary May 1994 Substantive changes from April '93 Draft are indicated by
Issue sideline thus: I as an aid to users, but neither the authors nor
SNAME make any warranty as to the accuracy of such
notations.
NOTES:
1. During the production of these sample calculations, the PRACTICE changed in a

variety of ways. The text was updated to match the fist issue ofthe PRACTICE
(1994), however not all the calculations were revised. Since the issue of this
document, the PRACTICE has been subject to two revisions (Rev 1, 1997 and Rev 2,
2002). Consequently neither the text nor the calculations of this document are fully
aligned with Rev 2 of the PRACTICE.
2. The User is therefore advised to treat this document as providing useful guidance that
must however be treated with caution and judgment.
Example ("Go-by") Calculations for a Typical Jackup Page 2
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Introductory Comments
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
General Points
This go-by document serves to blaze a trail through the analysis methods in the
PRACTICE. These methods have been applied to a hypothetical jack-up, the "Typical
Jack-up 2", and this document provides a set of engineer's notes on the analysis. Most of
the options available have been covered. It is intended that an engineer endeavoring to
perform an analysis of a unit according to the PRACTICE can look up the relevant
section(s) of this document to find sample calculations. Details ofthe Typical Jack-up 2
unit are provided in appendix A.
During the production of these sample calculations, the PRACTICE changed in a

variety of ways. It has been possible to update the text according to these changes,
but not to revise all the calculations. Consequently a study using the same input
data might not arrive at the same final answers. It should also be noted that at a
number of stages, for example in some of the detailed dynamic response
determinations, purely illustrative numbers have been used.
The PRACTICE employs partial load and resistance factors which, at the time of
production of this document, had not been finalized. Therefore, artificial load
factors of 1.0 were used throughout, however the resistance factors employed are in
accordance with PRACTICE except for the overturning check. The user should
have little trouble in applying other values.
It is anticipated that the this document will be fully updated in the future. Sections I
in need of significant updated are generally identified.
How to Use the Document
The flowchart of figure 2.1 of the PRACTICE (the FLOWCHART) shows the general
analysis route, and provides the basic structure ofthe go-by document. This is
reproduced at the appropriate part of the calculation sequence.
By following each box in the FLOWCHART, the go-by document is conveniently

compartmentalized. To address anyone item in a FLOWCHART box, the user can flick
through the text until corning to a reproduction of the relevant box, and start to follow the
calculations from there. It is not recommended that the user picks up calculations at other
points in the middle of the text.
While the order of the FLOWCHART is obeyed, the route through the PRACTICE to
complete each FLOWCHART item is in order of convenience. Where alternative paths
are available to complete an action, these are marked and placed one after the other.
Throughout the document roadsign-like symbols have been added to assist the user in
navigating the analysis options. The document is best read with the PRACTICE open for
reference.
Navigation Within the Document
The go-by document begins with the first section of the PRACTICE and proceeds to the
point at which the FLOWCHART is encountered. Each subsequent calculation step
begins with a reproduction of the relevant FLOWCHART box, which is often
accompanied by a few explanatory comments. In most cases, this is followed by "local
route card", which is of the form of:
WIND LOADS - route
Introduction 4.1
Wind Force Calculations 4.2
or Model Tests 4.7.6
The local route card is a more detailed list of the sections to be followed in the
completion of an item of the FLOWCHART, and shows the major choices available.
Similar cards appear at other points in the text as considered beneficial.
At key points "high level" instructions are given, for example advising the user when an
item is complete and the next FLOWCHART entry should be started. These are
identified by the upturned triangle:
Within the items of the FLOWCHART, there is a choice of routes to analysis and these
have been followed up, one after the other. A road sign like format has been adopted to
show the points where routes diverge, and to label the turn-off points for each option.
Examples include:
~
7.2
detailed
methods
C7.2
followed by ...
Once all the options have been discussed, a convergent route sign of similar form is
given. Smaller labels are provided for minor route choices and short turn-offs.
Whereas the major FLOWCHART items are tackled in an obedient order, the actions
within each item are tackled in the most appropriate order at the time.
A few other symbols are used, as referenced in the key below.

Key to Symbols:
The following types of symbol appear in the go-by document.
Top level navigational instruction, for example showing

where an item in the overall assessment has been
completed, or where a level of assessment has been
concluded.
Initial route
"Local route sign" showing the general route(s)
available to achieve an item in the overall
Read introduction 1
FLOWCHART.
Verify objectives 2
Follow FLOWCHART fig 2.1
Reference to an entry in the route card above. Placed in

margm.
detailed Point at which the analysis route divides into options

methods which are separately labeled within the PRACTICE.
C7.2
7.2
Indicator of start of a separately labeled option, as directed

by the signpost immediately above. Option terminates at
the next similar sign, or at the sign ...
5.5.3 5.5.4 Point at which separately labeled options converge onto the
V same route again.
l
Reference to an entry in the route card which carries on an
identified option.
7.2.2 Point at which a minor division in the analysis route

I occurs. This is usually within a sub-section.
A
I OPTION) Minor option in the route as introduced by the
above sign. Terminated either by a similar sign or
by the sign ...
Point at which minor route divisions re-converge.
Reference to source of further information in the

PRACTICE.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Initial Steps
INITIAL STEPS IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE TYPICAL JACK-UP 2
Initial route
Read introduction l.
Verify objectives 2.
Follow FLOWCHART fig 2.1
o INTRODUCTION
1.1 The PRACTICE is for use with the GUIDELINE. Section 1.4.1 of the GUIDELINE
states:
"Where a jack-up is to be employed in conditions well within its design

capacity and existing calculations in accordance with the
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE are available, the site specific assessment
may be undertaken by appropriate comparisons between the parameters
used in the calculations and those applicable to the new location.
Otherwise, engineering calculations of various degrees of complexity are
required to justify that the jack-up can be safely used at the location."
For this document it is assumed that the latter case applies and that recourse to the
PRACTICE is necessary to justify the safe use of the unit.
1.3 Alternative practices within the framework of the GUIDELINE are permissible.
o
2.1
OBJECTIVES
The following areas are covered:

geometric suitability
structural adequacy
foundation adequacy
overturning stability.
2.3 There are no local regulations to be met for this analysis.
2.4.1 An accurate representation of the condition of the unit is available for this study.
2.4.2 The jack-up can be assumed to be in sound mechanical and structural condition.
2.4.4 Three levels of assessment are available:

comparison with existing assessments
application of simple methods
application of complex methods
These are hierarchical. Satisfying a simple assessment method is adequate. Otherwise a
more complex method may be attempted.
Foundations are to be assessed.
It is now appropriate to start using the

FLOWCHART in figure 2.1, as reproduced
overleaf.
Upside down triangles give "top-level"

instructions in this GO-BY document.
Overall analysis FLOWCHART as given in figure 2.1 of the PRACTICE
Cbtain jack-"" data, Sectim 3.1.

Establish proposed Weights and C.ofG.'s Section 3.2.
Cbtain Environmental data, Sections 3.3, j.4, 3.5 & 3.6.
Cbtain Geotechnical data, Sections 3.11 - 3.16.
Will 'other aspects' limit suitability: Yes Preventative measures

- HydrodynamicsSecSectfm 4.8. avai lable and wi II
- Foundations tim 6.4. be adcptecl?
- Cordition o~ unit, Sectim 8.7
Yes No
No
I Determine airgap, Sectim 3.7 (or as dictated by other considerations, if higher).

Estimate leg penetrations (based m maxinun preload), Sectim 6.2. I I~~UBLE I
No
No
liS adeq.Jate leg length avai lable? Section 3.10. Choose to calculate
req.Jired preload ard
Yes re-assess penetratim
Yes IAWL icable calculations according to PRACTICE
exist and show acceptability? Sectim 2.4.4.
I and leg length?
Yes
1
IAssess foundation
Sections 6.3 &8. j •
l Not a< No
a<
IEstabl ish wind loads Sectim 4.2, hydrodynamic coefficients,
Sections 4.6 & 4..t Prepare analysis models, Sectim 5. J
IDetermine responses (e.g. SOOF method), Section 7/Figure 7.1. I
IAssess structure and overturning, Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.5, 8.6 & 8.7.~()(
()(
lit legreq.Jired,
&
re-assess penetration I Not ()(
length, Sections 6.2 3.10.
&
()(
IAssess foundation, Sections 6.3 & 8.3/Figure 6.9. J Not ()(

()(
Not ()(
/If applicable, check horizontal
deflections, Sectim 8.4.
I
()(
Choose roore detai led:
- Response calculation
(Section 7/Figure 7.1>.
- Res~e calculation
inc uding foundatim
fixity
-
Yes
(Sectlon'7/Figure 7.1 &
Section 6.3/Figure 6.10).
No
UNIT
I SUITABLE J I UNIT
UNSUITABLE
Figure 2.1 - Overall flow chart for the assessment

Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Collect Data
COLLECT DATA FOR THE TYPICAL JACKUP 2
Obtain jack-up data, Section 3.1.

Establish proposed Weights and C. of G.'s, Section 3.2.
Obtain Environmental data, Sections 3.3,3.4,3.5 & 3.6.
Obtain Geotechnical data, Sections 3.11 - 3.16.
~
The first item in the FLOWCHART involves data collection. The references are well itemized,
and so no local route sign is required.
OBTAIN JACK-UP DATA
~ Rig data
3.1.1 Following the GUIDELINE the following data is collected:
Rig type Typical Jackup 2

Drawings & specifications (original data pack)
Weights (original data pack)
Pre loading capability (original data pack)
Materials (original data pack)
Design parameters/ deviations none
Relevant modifications none
3.1.2 The original data pack acts as the operations manual for this study.
ESTABLISH PROPOSED WEIGHTS AND C of Gs
[22] Functional Loadings
3.2.1 It is assumed that this study represents a survival assessment.
3.2.2 Maximum elevated weight: 6800 t

(100% variable load)
Minimum elevated weight: 5800 t
(50% variable load)
The weight distribution can be deduced from plans and the original data package.
For both cases, survival C. of G. is

LCG: 16.0m fwd. of aft legs centers.
VCG: O.Om port oflongitudinal C L .
tolerance: ± 1.5m either way.
3.2.2
(cont) Information is not currently available on:
substructure and derrick position
hook, rotary or setback loads.
However the above C. of G.'s incorporate the substructure and derrick.
Weight of one leg excluding can: 880 t

Weight of footing spudcan: 200 t
Determine C. of G. of dry leg + spudcan:

height of can 6.25 m
leg length excl. can: 93.75 m
[880( 6.25 + li (93.75)) + 200(li (6.25))]
VCG above can tip
880+ 200
43.87m
Determine buoyancy of legs and can:
Buoyancy per unit length = displaced weight of one bay/length of one bay
1.025 x enclosed volume of one bay + 3.75m
3.232 tim
Obtain buoyant upthrust on can. Assume can is flooded.
Mass of can = 200 t

For density of steel of7.856 t/m 3 ,
volume of steel in can 20017.856 = 25.46 m 3
displaced volume of water.
so buoyant upthrust 1.025 x 25.46
26.1 t
3.2.3 To meet an overturning requirement it is permitted that water can be added to the hull
weight (bear in mind). [not used]
OBTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
@] Environmental Conditions - General
50 year return period extreme conditions are to be used here.
Wind, wave and current act in the same direction, and at the same time as the extreme
water level. No directional data is to be used here.
B Wind
3.4.1 The 50 year, 1 minute sustained wind at 10m above sea level is 39.0m/s.
3.4.2
3.4.3
In the absence of further information, the 111 Oth power law of Sections
3.4.2/4.2.2 will be used.
rn
4.2.2
There is no requirement for the jackup to be altered between operating and survival
modes.
~ Waves
3.5.1 Hsrp 8.6 m specified

3.5.1 Hmax 16.0 m specified
( 1.86 Hsrp O.K.; also O.K. for airgap calcs per 3.5.2)
3.5.1.1 } These are specific applications ofH to be considered in the
3.5.1.2 } course of the analysis.
3.5.1.2 Tass= 13.0 s specified.
Check: 3.44~Hsrp = 10.1 s} Tass lies within range just.
4.42 ~Hsrp = 13.0 s }
3.5.3 A JONSWAP spectrum has been specified. In-house programs cater for this spectrum.
We have here specific values ofT p and Tz, so the peak enhancement factor is defined
Tp = 12.4 s } Tp/Tz = 1.305
Tz 9.5 s } so by interpolation, y= 2.77
Check range of Tz:
3.2~Hsrp 9.38 s so Tz is within range.
3.6~Hsrp 10.56 s
According to the note to 3.5.3, a range of periods should be considered, or a 2
parameter spectrum should be used with the same peak period. Here, consider a single
JONSW AP period only.
3.5.4 Short crestedness should be investigated (see also 7.3.7.5). Here, for example purposes,
ignore spreading.
3.5.5 If dynamics is significant, watch out for other seastates with large dynamic response.
~ Current
The specification of the current profile is
surface current 2 m/s } block profile

bottom current 2 m/s }
This supersedes all of 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.
Stretch profile to get same surface component in waves.

See section 4.4.2
4.4.2
OBTAIN GEOTECHNICAL DATA
~ Geotechnical and Geophysical Information.
It is assumed that the unit is to operate in areas for which there is considerable experience
ofthe geotechnical conditions. Two locations are to be considered, with the soil
conditions of 1) homogeneous sand and 2) homogeneous clay as follows:
Sand: triaxial friction angle <p 38°

(locn 1) submerged unit weight "I 0.011 MN/m 3
3
Clay: submerged unit weight "I 0.009 MN/m
(locn 2) undrained cohesive shear strength varies linearly
from cu 0.040 MN/m2 at surface
to Cu = 0.080 MN/m2 at depth of 10m
It is not necessary to go through sections 3.12 to 3.16 for a site where there is operating
experience.
All the items in this box of the FLOWCHART have

now been carried out.
Skip the "other aspects" box (outside the scope) and
go to the box for air gap & penetrations
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Other Aspects
OTHER LIMITING ASPECTS OF THE ANALYSIS
Will 'other aspects' limit suitability:

Hydrodynamics, Section 4.8 ~
Foundations, Section 6.4
Condition of unit, Section 8.7
The unit should be assessed for the other limiting aspects as identified in the FLOWCHART box.
These, however, are outside the scope of this document and so are not considered further. The
following analysis assumes that these aspects are not limiting.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Other Aspects
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Airgap & Penetration
DETERMINATION OF AIRGAP AND PENETRATION
I
Determine airgap, Section 3.7 (or as dictated by other considerations, ifhigher).
Estimate leg penetrations (based on maximum preload), Section 6.2.
The actions in this item of the main FLOWCHART concern leg length demands. Their
completion is straightforward and so no local route sign is required.
DETERMINE AIRGAP
6 Water levels and Airgap
3.7.1 Lowest astronomical tide: 25 m above sea bed.
3.7.2 Highest astronomical tide: 28.5 m above sea bed.
Mean water level MWL = 12(28.5 + 25) = 26.75 m
3.7.3 Extreme SWL MHWS + surge

3.5 + 1.5 = 5.0 m above LAT
5 + 26 = 31.0 m above seabed
3.7.4 For cases where lower water levels are more onerous,
minimum SWL = MLWS + (-ve) surge
This information is not immediately available. Wait and see whether it crops up. [in the
end the MLWS was not used in this analysis]
3.7.5 Determine minimum airgap above LAT:

clearance 1.50 m
extreme SWL 5.00 m
crest height 11.03 m (see below)
augap 17.53 m
From 3.5.2 a maximum wave height of 16m is applicable for airgap calculations. The
required format of this information is as a 50 year extreme crest height.
(4.4.1) The wave crest height is to be found from an applicable wave theory according to 4.4.1.
Refer to figure 4.1.
Hmax = 16.0 m } H/gT2 0.0096
Tass 13. s }
g 9.81 mls } d/gT 2 0.018
d 30 m }
This indicates that the seventh order stream function should be used. An in-house
program using stream function gives:
C50 = 11.03 m
ESTIMATE LEG PENETRA nONS
A penetration of 1.25m has already been specified for this assessment, for either soil type,
corresponding to an experience-based approach. Although not necessary for this analysis,
the penetration calculation sections are now considered.
16.21 Prediction of Footing Penetration During Preloading
6.2.1 Looking for an equilibrium position between vertical footing load and bearing capacity of
the footing.
Investigate backflow; there can be no back flow since D = 0.0 for 1.25m penetration.
Now obtain the vertical capacity ofthe footing at various levels of penetration and match
against the vertical footing load (during preload).
The sections 6.2.2 to 6.2.6 give ways of deriving the vertical footing capacity for a range
of soil types. Here only uniform clays and uniform silica sands are considered in detail.
6.2.2 to 6.2.6
@2>Penetration in Clays
For an undrained clay foundation as defined earlier ("locn 2"):
<p 0
3
"I 0.009 MN/m
cu 0.040 MN/m2 at surface ) linear
cu 0.080 MN/m2 at 10m depth) variation
The undrained vertical bearing capacity for preloading the clay foundation (allowing for
backflow and displaced soil) is given by:
VLo = {cu.Ne.se.de + Po' - Fo' + "IV/A}A
where the terms are defined as follows.

Ne 5.14 from the glossary
Se 1 + (NqlNe).(B/L)
1.19, since N q = 1.0 for <p = 0, and B = L.
Assuming for now that there is no backflow,

Po' 0
Fo' = 0
Assuming also only partial embedment,

de 1 + O.4(D/B)
= 1.0 since D = o.
6.2.2
(cont) This leaves the terms cu , A and V which are dependent on the penetration depth. A given
depth will have unique values of each of these terms, and so the variation of Qu with
penetration depth can be plotted:
penetration
h2
The level of penetration is found by substituting the preload footing vertical reaction
during preload Vp for Qu, and reading offthe penetration depth h 2.
Here, the footing reaction during preload is SO.734 MN, so the above procedure amounts
to finding the depth at which:
6.117 cwA + 0.009 V = SO.734
Ifh2 indicates complete embedment, the above formulation will require revision, but the
same principles of equilibrium apply.
~Penetration in Silica Sands
The silica sand identified earlier ("locn 1") is characterized by:

<p 38°
Y = 0.011 MN/m 3
The ultimate vertical bearing capacity for preloading a circular footing (allowing for
backflow and displaced soil) can be calculated from:
V Lo = {O.S yB Ny Sy dy + Po'Nq Sq d q - Fo' + yV/A} A
where the terms are obtained as follows.
Assuming initially no backflow,

Po' = 0
Fo' = 0
From the glossary,

Ny = 2(Nq + 1)tan<p
78.0 since N q = 48.93 for <p = 38,
Sy 0.6
dy 1.0
This leaves the terms B, A and V which depend on the penetration depth. As for the clay
soil, Qu can now be derived as a graphical function of depth of penetration. Substituting
the footing vertical reaction during preload for Qu in the same way yields the depth,
effectively solving the equilibrium equation:
0.2S7 A + 0.011 V = SO.734
~Penetration in Carbonate Sands
Basically this is not a mainstream calculation.
~Penetration in Silts
Obtain range of capacities from loose sand to soft clay and refer to illustrations above.
~Penetration in Layered Soils

(Outside the scope of this document)
penetration
,
A value of airgap and a value of penetration
are now obtained.
Now check there is sufficient leg length.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Leg Length
ASSESSMENT OF LEG LENGTH
Is adequate leg length available? Section 3.10.
The foregoing calculation of penetration and airgap will determine how much leg reserve there is
for a given water depth. The availability ofleg length should be checked against this, and if there
is insufficient reserve the unit is not recommended for use. In some such cases it may be
possible to refine the penetration analysis, or use less preload so that the calculated leg length
reserve can be made acceptable.
IS ADEQUATE LEG LENGTH AVAILABLE?
[]JQJ Refer to section 3.3 of the guideline. A leg length reserve of 1.5m is recommended.
For this unit: fixed factors (keel to u.G.): 19.00 m

airgap above LAT: 17.53 m
water depth (LAT): 25.00 m
penetration: 1.25 m
total length used: 62.78 m
Leg length: 100.00 m
reserve: 37.22 m
Therefore the unit has plenty of leg length in reserve.
With adequate leg length the analysis can

proceed to a comparison with existing calcs.
Otherwise refinements to the penetration
calculation should be considered, or other
suitable preload levels and the check repeated.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Existing Conditions
REVIEW EXISTING CALCULATIONS
I
Applicable calculations according to PRACTICE
exist and show acceptability? Section 2.4.4
If there has been an historic study on the same type of unit at a similar location it may be
appropriate to draw conclusions from it for the current assessment. This is the lowest level of
application ofthe PRACTICE as mentioned in 2.4.4.
APPLICABLE CALCULATIONS ACCORDING TO PRACTICE EXIST AND

SHOW ACCEPTABILITY?
There have been no analyses of this unit at this location according to the PRACTICE.
Therefore acceptability cannot be demonstrated at this stage.
W
EXT Had there been a previous study according to
ITEM the practice in which the above calculated
parameters had been as severe, or more severe,
and for which the unit had been acceptable for
the relevant assessment checks, then no further
analysis would have been necessary and the unit would have
been acceptable.
Because this was not so, the higher order studies of

section 2.4.4 must be carried out. All the following items
in the flow chart apply to either the simple or the
detailed methods of 2.4.4.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Wind load / hydro
ESTABLISH WIND LOADS AND HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
~stablish wind loads, Section 4.2, Hydrodynamic coefficients

Sections 4.6 & 4.7.; Prepare analysis models, Section 5,
1
This item of the FLOWCHART contains two sizable amounts of work. It is therefore presented
in two parts. Here the wind loads and hydrodynamic coefficients are tackled.
WIND LOADS - route
Introduction 4.1
Wind Force Calculations 4.2

or Model Tests 4.7.6
ESTABLISH WIND LOADS
Only use the wind loads determined in section 4 with the environmental loads also
determined in section 4. The section has been designed to produce a matching load set.
Mixing parts of section 4 with other sources may lead to errors.
Wind forces may be obtained from calculations or from model tests.
Wind
Model I
force
Tests / \ calcs
4.7.6 ~ ~ 4.2
§Model tests for wind loads
Model tests must consider:
roughness
Keulegan-Carpenter number dependence
Reynolds number dependence
It is not appropriate here to carry this option further.

Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Wind load I hydro
E)Wind Force Calculations
This section gives a method for deriving the wind force on any block or structure of the
unit above the SWL. The force is given in relation to a reference windspeed V ref, to the
area of the block projected normal to the Vref, and to coefficients Cs and Ch which account
for shape and elevation respectively. There are two options for obtaining the Ch •
Note that "shielding effects are not normally included in the calculation". This is because
a profile area viewed from the direction under consideration is to be used.
For the typical jackup 2,

p 1.2224 kg/m 3 <4.2.1>
Vref = 39.0 m/s (1 min sustained at 10m)
The application of loads is left to the user. For this calculation the wind force on the
structure above the SWL shall be partitioned into:
force on hull structure
+ force on legs above hull
+ force on legs, hull to SWL
total wind force above SWL
Wind force on hull structure:
By treating the hull structure as a single block, the force on the hull structure can be
written in the form:
Force
where A hull is an effective area for the hull. The corresponding moment about the SWL is
2
Moment = Y2p V refAhullZhull
where Zhull is the effective moment arm.
From this subsection we can calculate an effective area and moment arm from the
numerous contributions ofthe projected areas of the blocks making up the hull structure.
The following procedure is applied here.
Identify major blocks in the hull structure. The descriptions in Table 4.2 can be
used here with outboard profiles and general arrangements.
Measure projected areas of blocks and their effective arms above the SWL for the
elevated position.
4.2.2 - Obtain height coefficients for the blocks either from Table 4.1 or from the equation
C h = (Z/ZrefifN with N = 10 here.
I Option> Use Table 4.1 to get height coefficients.
The blocks are subdivided so that no blocks straddle the height divisions in Table 4.1.
The Ch are applied accordingly.
I Option> Obtain height coefficients from equation.
Blocks are subdivided so that none has vertical dimension greater than 15m. The Ch
are obtained for the elevations of the centers of effort of the blocks. All elevations
below 15m shall be treated as if the elevation were 10m.
4.2.3 d. Obtain shape coefficients from Table 4.2.
e. Calculate the sum of the projected areas to get A hull .
4.2.1 f. Calculate the wind forces on each block and add them up. Calculate the wind
moments on each block and add them up. Take the ratio of the two sums to obtain
Zhull.
The above procedure is applied in a spreadsheet. Summary results for the jack-up hull
excluding legs are:
heading wind wind arm efftve. arm

force moment above area above
reSWL SWL keel
(0) (t) (tm) (m) (m 2 ) (m)
0 2539 61504 26.05 2540 15.69.
60 2637 70180 26.62 2836 16.26.
90 2104 51325 26.24 2104 15.88.
Wind force on exposed leg sections:
The procedure for calculating the wind forces on the exposed leg sections is identical to
that for the hull structure, except that shape coefficients shall be computed from section
4.6.
GOT04Ji6
(hydro
model
to get ~
C s) .J,..
From the leg calculation, values of C s can be found under the heading C De for the
equivalent leg with no marine growth.
4.2.1
(cont)
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS -route
Leg Hydrodynamic Model 4.6

Hydrodynamic Coefficients
for Leg Members 4.7
alternative route:
Model tests 4.7.6
ESTABLISH HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
The parts of section 4 relevant to this calculation are 4.6 and 4.7. Sections 4.3 to 4.5 need
not be considered in detail until later, but it may be useful at this stage to be aware of
their content.
The use of model tests to establish coefficients is permitted as an option.
Leg I
Model hydro
Testi\model
§ Model Tests for Hydrodynamic Coefficients
Model tests must consider:

roughness
Keulegan-Carpenter number dependence
Reynolds number dependence
For this document it is not appropriate to carry this option further.
o Leg Hydrodynamic Model
4.6.1
[!JI
The form of the hydrodynamic model depends on the nature of the modeling technique
applied down the line. The user must decide whether a detailed
representation of all leg members is to be applied in the
structural model (the detailed model), or whether an equivalent
model of a single tubular is to be used for the leg. In the 5.6.4
hydrodynamic model calculation, details of all members are
considered in both approaches, so it is not difficult to change from one modeling
approach to another. Section 5.6.4 gives details of the structural modeling options.
4.6.2 Use node to node member lengths. Check whether there are any large, non structural
items to be included. Identify any free standing pipes or water towers requiring their own
modeling.
There are no non-structural items identified for the legs of this unit. There are no free-
standing pipes or water towers.
4.6.3 Check for the contribution of the part of the spudcan above the seabed:
(i) water depth (SWL) 30m ) depth> 2.5 Hs, so spudcan
2.5Hs = 2.5 x 8.6 21.5m) contribution insignificant
(ii) penetration 1.25m ) penetration < liz spudcan height,
spudcan height 6.25m) but check (i) overrides.
In the absence of further information, it is taken that the spudcan contribution to

hydrodynamic loading is negligible.
4.6.4 Shielding and solidification effects are not normally considered.

There is no reason to override this here. Interference is applied to
the current, as detailed later in section 4.5.3.
4.5.3
0Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Leg Members:
4.7.2 For this unit there is no specification of anti-fouling measures, and so it is assumed that
the members are rough below MWL+2m. From 3.7.2 we have MWL = 26.75m.
Hydrodynamic details for tubular members:
horizontal braces: length 8.680m

outer diameter 0.350m
diagonal braces: length 5.736m
outer diameter 0.350m
internal spanbreakers: length 4.340m
outer diameter O.lOOm
for all of the above:
above MWL + 2m, CD 0.65
above MWL + 2m, CM 2.00
below MWL + 2m, CD 1.00
below MWL + 2m, CM 1.80
The unit has not had previous operation and so there is no likelihood of roughness
occurring beyond the above stated limits.
4.7.3 There is no site-specific information on marine growth thickness, and so a thickness of

12.5mm is to be applied to all members below MWL + 2m. Chords excepted, as noted
below.
There is no documentation of anti-fouling measures for this unit.

4.7.4 For gusset plates, use Co = 2.0 with projected visible area. Represent the visible area A j
as an arbitrary (but representative) length lj, and an effective diameter Di, such that Aj =
IjD j. Apply Cm values as in table 4.3.
For this unit it is convenient to treat the gussets attached to a chord as a single item .
.J,.. 0°
Define directions on each chord as demonstrated.
Visible dimensions are calculated as summarized in
the following table. Select lj = 1.575m.
e visible visible projected Dj

width area area A
(0) (m) (m 2 ) (m2 ) (m)
0 0 0 0 0
30 0.084 0.0424 0.0367 0.0233
45 0.l14 0.0698 0.0589 0.0374
60 0.l54 0.0885 0.0885 0.0562
90 0.250 0.l65 0.143 0.0909
From symmetry the values for 180° - e equal the values for e, for e > 90°.
4.7.5 The chords ofthis unit are of geometry covered by Figure 4.5 and the subsequent
equations.
backplate to pitchpoint length W = 1.2m
backplate width D = 1.0m
From 4.7.3, marine growth on the teeth ofthe racks and on the guided surfaces is to be
ignored. In this case, the guides are at either side of the back plate and so Wand D do
not change with marine growth. There is no variation in C Opr and so marine growth
does not affect the chord hydrodynamic properties.
Set the reference dimension Dj = D = 1.00m. For local directions as defined for the
gussets, the following member drag coefficients are obtained:
eco) DprCm) C Opr COj

0 1.000 1.700 1.700
15 0.966 1.742 1.683
30 1.033 1.783 1.842
45 1.202 1.825 2.l94
60 1.289 1.867 2.407
75 1.289 1.908 2.459
90 1.200 1.950 2.340
105 1.289 1.400 1.805
120 1.289 1.472 1.897
135 1.202 1.543 1.855
150 1.033 1.615 1.668
165 0.966 1.888 1.824
180 1.000 2.000 2.000
For all headings the chord CMj = 2.0. This does not change for marine growth.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Wind load I hydro
4.7.6 All leg members are now covered.
The necessary calculation for the detailed leg

is now complete. If required the information
can be combined in an equivalent leg model as
described in the option below. Instructions
applicable to both cases follow the equivalent
leg model.
equivalent
leg 4.6.5
~ Equivalent leg model
An equivalent leg model comprising a single tubular of effective hydrodynamic

properties may be constructed from the detailed member hydrodynamic information.
For each different type of bay, overall parameters are derived as follows:
effective diameter:
effective drag coefficient: CDe = L CDei
effective inertia coefficient CMe = L CMei
with s bay height

Clj angle in horizontal plane of member axis from flow direction
~i angle of member axis from horizontal.
Ae = effective area ofleg = nD/14
and other symbols as defined above.
Using these relationships, spreadsheets were set up. Summary results for this unit
follow. Zero degrees heading is defined as parallel to the axis of symmetry of a chord
cross-section. The leg exhibits triangular symmetry.
4.6.5 (1) for no marine growth (above MWL+2m)
(cont)
Heading De C De Ae C Me
(0) (m) (m2)
0 2.24 3.41 3.94 1.85
30 2.24 3.58 3.94 1.85
45 2.24 3.85 3.94 1.85
60 2.24 4.00 3.94 1.85
(2) for 12.5mm marine growth (below MWL+2m)
Heading De C De Ae C Me
(0) (m) (m 2 )
0 2.31 3.90 4.18 1.78
30 2.31 4.06 4.18 1.78
45 2.31 4.32 4.18 1.78
60 2.31 4.47 4.18 1.78
End of
equivalent leg
option
4.2J There is now sufficient information to calculate the wind

loads on the exposed leg sections by use of an equivalent
~
leg, using C s = C De and projected width De. Before
progressing to the next item, conclude data collection for
the wind loading.
4.7.6 4.7
V
l
Hydrodynamic coefficients and wind forces
are now determined. Go on to the next action
in the FLOWCHART box i.e. analysis models.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Analysis models
PREPARE ANALYSIS MODELS
Establish wind loads, Section 4.2, Hydrodynamic coefficients,

Sections 4.6 & 4.7. Prepare analysis models, Section 5
1
The second action in this FLOWCHART box is now considered. The action refers to analysis
models, but it was found to be easier just to establish the structural models at this stage, having
read through the other sections 5.1 to 5.4. Sections 5.5 and 5.7 on load application crop up when
tackling the response calculations.
STRUCTURAL MODELS - general route
Introduction 5.6.1
Observe general considerations 5.6.2
Select model(s) 5.6.3
Construct models 5.6.4
to 5.6.7
PREPARE ANALYSIS MODELS
For most jack-up configurations it is necessary to develop a Finite Elements computer

model. The choice is between
+ Type a: most detailed and complete model
+ Type b: like type a but with more simplified legs.
+ Type c: simplest 3 leg model
+ Type d: detailed model of one leg
Features discussed in this section of relevance to the typical jackup 2 are:
There is a floating jacking system without a fixation system. Therefore there is a

couple due to horizontal loads from chords touching upper and lower guides.
Watch out for bending moments being locally high.
The jacking system comprises unopposed pinions, and so locally high chord
bending moments come in through vertical and horizontal offsets of pinion
reactions W.r.t chord centerlines.
On the basis of the descriptions of the model types and the considerations in 5.6.2,
selection of appropriate analysis models can be made.
The following checks are required for this study: overturning, foundation, leg member
loads, pinion system loads. The models which would satisfy these requirements are,
from table 5.1:
• Type a
• Type b
• Type c with type d
It has been decided that the most suitable models for application in this office are the
equivalent 3 stick leg model (type c) in conjunction with the single detailed leg (type d).
It is appropriate to calibrate the leg properties in the 3 leg model against the
characteristics of the detailed single leg model.
GOTO selected
a+b
model route( s)
c/d
5.6.3 a) Detailed Leg 5.6.4a

Fully detailed Hull 5.6.5
3 leg model Hull/leg connection 5.6.6
Spudcan 5.6.7
This modeling technique has not been used for this study. However, many of the notes
for model types c and d are applicable, and appropriate reference is made to these.
See notes for model type d.
See notes for model type c. When constructing the hull model, accommodation must be
made for the jackhouse connections, and the lower guide connections to the leg. A
grillage model must therefore have beams which connect with the roots ofthe jack
house model. It will be necessary to add in links from the grillage to the lower guide
connection points. These should have stiffnesses representative of the local hull
structure.
See notes for model type d. Instead of earthing the jackhouse and lower guide
connections, these can be linked in to the hull grillage or plate model.
Connections as applied in model type d are usually appropriate. See those notes.
References to the spudcan section are OK for this model.
5.6.3 b) Combination Leg 5.6.4c

Combination leg Hull 5.6.5
3 leg model Hull/leg connection 5.6.6
Spudcan 5.6.7
This modeling technique has not been used for this study. However, many of the notes
for model types (c) and (d) are applicable, and appropriate reference is made to these.
The notes on the hull sub-model and hull/leg connection sub-model as given for model
type (a) also apply and are reproduced for this model type.
The connection between the two leg model parts is such that "the plane of connection
remains a plane after the leg is bent"
1 5 .6 .4c I Leg model
5.6.4a Construct a detailed leg sub-model as for the model type d, but for a length extending
from at least 4 bays below the lower guide to at least 4 bays above the upper guide, or
the top of the leg (whichever comes first).
5.6.4b Using this length of detailed leg sub-model, clamp one end and apply 'unit' loadcases to
determine equivalent leg beam properties. Set up colinear beam sub-models for the
remaining lengths of each leg above and below the guides.
5.6.4c Make connections between the portions of leg by rigid links from the three chords to
the equivalent leg beam. This will ensure the boundary condition described in 5.6.2.
Note that in these regions, spurious stresses may emerge from the response calculations.
See notes for model type c. When constructing the hull model, accommodation must be
made for the jackhouse connections, and the lower guide connections to the leg. A
grillage model must therefore have beams which connect with the roots of the jack
house model. It will be necessary to add in links from the grillage to the lower guide
connection points. These should have stiffnesses representative of the local hull
structure.
See notes for model type d. Instead of earthing the jackhouse and lower guide
connections, these can be linked in to the hull grillage or plate model.
Stiff or rigid equivalent beams will be sufficient to meet the

recommendations for this model. See model type c.
5.6.3 c) Equivalent leg 5.6.4b

Equivalent 3 Hull 5.6.5
stick leg model Hull/leg connection 5.6.6
The simple 3 leg model (type c) will be used to obtain global loads, such as spudcan
reactions, and intemalleg loads at the lower guide. If detailed leg strength checks are to
be performed, the model type (d) will also be required.
In constructing the simple 3 leg model (type c) fairly detailed modeling of the hull/leg
connection will be necessary to determine effective stiffnesses. If a type (d) detailed leg
model is to be used later, it might also be used for this part of the calculation.
Therefore it would be more efficient to construct the type (d) model first.
Model
... type
" (d)
1 - -.....
.011 I
....
"'III~
5.6.4
I5.6.4l The appropriate leg sub-model is the 'equivalent' leg, comprising a series of colinear
~ beam elements as described in 5.6.4b.
Note that the modeling of the legs here is tied in with the hydrodynamic coefficient
modeling of equivalent legs.
5.6.4b To determine the required properties ofthe equivalent beams there is a choice of
methods.
DJ IOPTION> Apply formulae contained in Figure 5.1.

The unit has a leg side of type B ('K-brace'). Therefore the equivalent shear area of one
side is:
2
(1 + v)sh
AQi = ~+~_~(N3
Ao 8A v NA c 3
_. Li
l=l,N
2
J
where s 3.75m bay height
N Lis = 48.75/3.75 13.0
L 48.75 active leg length * to be revised
h 8.68m side width
d 5.74m diagonal length
2
AD 0.0183m diagonal section area
Av 0.0183m2 horizontal section area
Ac 0.1 93m2 chord section area
l.e.
5.6.4b The leg cross section is type A (triangular), and so:
(cont)
3 ACi 0.579 m 2 leg area
YzAQi 0.0331m2 leg shear areas
lhAci h2 7.10 m 4 leg 2nd mom. area
> 0.451 m 4
'l4AQih2 leg torsional mom.
OPTION Get cross sectional properties of leg by application of

I. . 'unit' load cases to the detailed leg.
If a detailed leg model is available it is possible to use it to determine the equivalent leg
cross sectional properties. The technique is to fully clamp the leg model at one end so
that there is no hull or jackhouse involvement, and to apply loads at a known distance
away. By comparing deflections with a simple beam model of the same length, under
the same loads, effective beam properties can be deduced.
wi
V
~I <I <I <I <I <I <I <I <I <I <I
6z -1
<-
p
y
wi
II
~
E.A.I,~
6z -1
V
-
P
y To
For the calculations below, L = 48.75m (*to be revised), E = 200x1 06 kN/m2 and G =
E/2.6. The leg properties are here assumed to be symmetrical.
Leg sectional area:
Apply P = 10000 kN, W = 0, M = o. Obtain leg vertical deflection oz at the point of

load application.
A = PLlEoz = 0.581m2
Leg 2nd Moment of Area:
Apply P = 0, W = 0, M = 86800 kNm. Obtain leg horizontal deflection Oh at the point

of load application.
= ML2/2Eoh = 6.85m2
5.6.4b Leg shear area:

(cont)
Apply P = 0, W = 10000 kN, M = O. Obtain leg horizontal deflection ~ at the point of
load application.
WLIE 2
AQy = A Qz = Oh _ (wI! 13EI) = 0.025m
5.6.2c In accordance with the recommendations for the spudcan modeling, nominally stiff
beam properties are put in for the length of the legs corresponding to the spudcan. Use
the following:
10 m 2
4
100 m
4
100 m
2
1m
5.6.5 There are two recommended techniques available for modeling the hull structure. Jack-
up models incorporating a hull model may use either, depending on the preference of
the user.
III I OPTION> Construct hull using plate elements.
~ This is the more detailed of the modeling techniques and is likely to reproduce hull
flexibility and stressing with the greater accuracy. A model can be set up representing
bulkheads, decks, top, bottom and sides with equivalent plate properties to account for
stiffeners, spacers, etc.
I OPTION> Generate grillage of beams.
The hull flexibility can be represented by constructing a grillage of beams with

properties chosen to represent the flexibilities ofthe hull. This method involves some
approximation and certain aspects may not be modeled properly, for example in-plane
shear stresses. However, the overall flexibility is adequate for the application of the 3
leg stick model, and use of the detailed single leg model with hand calculations is
expected to be of sufficient accuracy for this unit.
The first stage is to establish the geometry of the grillage. This is based on the plan of
bulkheads and plate sides, and is shown in figure 1a.
Next, properties are to be assigned to the equivalent beams. It is appropriate to assign

sectional areas, second moments of area in plane and out of plane, and the torsional
second moments of area. A typical calculation is as follows.
Assign long, beam-like portions of the structure, following a bulkhead or like which can
represent the web. An effective width of the beam-like component can be deduced
from inspection of the plan, such that most of the plan area is assigned to beams with
mInImUm
Figure 1a. 3 Stick Leg Model (showing hull beam grillage)
Figure 1b. Division of Hull Structure into Equivalent Beams
-_. __
,
._-
5.6.5
(cont) overlap (figure 1b). If this web is too large, a limit such as effective width ~ where t is
the 'web' thickness might be appropriate.
For example, a beam section to represent the sides of the unit is:
f--8.5m -----t
y 8m
~ 25mmthick
Area
Ixx
Iyy
0.872 m 2
10.32 m
5.61 m 4
4
4x \ ~20mmthick Itors
(see below)
(see below)
AH ~
2.67m \.- 40mm thick
Some standardizations and adjustments may be appropriate. It is noted that the

PRACTICE does not advocate use of nominally high in-plane stiffnesses, but does
advise that attention is paid to this aspect; as the beams will be effectively constrained
against bending in the plane ofthe hull (by the deck plating) increase Iyy to say 50m4.
For the torsional properties, the overall torsional moment of area of the hull is estimated
and divided up between the beams.
Transverse cross section at full width:
25mm thick }jI
8m 11 f- 20mm thick 20mm thick --t
40mm thic~ --7-4-.-6m---"~

Overall torsional stiffness of a box section (not from RP):
4A2
It = L(b / t) for plates of thickness t, width b and box enclosed area A.
Therefore for the above section, It = 250 m4. This is apportioned equally between the
4
four longitudinal beams, such that each has torsional second moment of area It = 60m .
Performing the above calculations for each beam produces a hull model which matches
the requirements of 5.6.5b.
~ The hull/ leg connection model can now be put in.
This unit has a floating jacking system with no fixation system. A simplified derivation
of the equivalent leg-hull connection stiffness is applicable. Modeling shall consider
the effects of:
+ guide and support system clearances, stiffness and clearance.
+ wear
+ construction tolerances
+ backlash
5.6.6f Construct simple (conservative) model of interface. This comprises springs to represent
vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffnesses.
The derivation of the spring stiffnesses is left fairly open. Guidance

is available in the Commentary on how to do some of the modeling.
The "extreme importance" ofthe hull/leg connection modeling has
already been stressed.
C5.4
From C5.4, the following are key variables:
+ bending, shear, torsion ofleg
+ axial bending, shear, torsion of jackhouse
+ stiffness of upper and lower guides
+ clearance/ tolerance of legs within guides
+ backlash in jacking system
+ type of leg guide arrangement
+ rack/pinion arrangement.
Hand calculation of effective springs for stick leg model
Model the interface as follows:

«upper guide
Moment M applied produces

rotation Q radians, and is pinion set
resisted by:
upper guide stiffness
lower guide stiffness lower guide»
pinion stiffness
shockpad stiffness
shearing of leg
All clearances and backlash is assumed to be taken up.
From the equations in 7.3.5.3 an approximate rotational stiffness for this leg/hull
connection is:
5.6.6f where chord centers spacing
(cont) combined elevation system stiffness
(see below)
relative stiffness of guides
dist. between upper and lower guides
shear area of leg
modulus of elasticity of leg material
A corresponding estimate of vertical stiffness is

Kz 3 ke
Here, h 8.68m
d 15 m
E 200 x 106 kN/m
Aq 0.0368 m 2
Relative stiffness of upper & lower guides:
-0 Assume all flexibility comes from comer posts. Ignore

F- flexibility of hull behind lower guide.
ku 3F/(3 as shown
3(3EI/L3)
3x3x200x 106 X 1.0/(0.150)3
5.4 X 1011 kN/m
III
Note that in reality the jackframe bracing will contribute significantly to the stiffness,
and should also be taken into account.
Combined stiffness of fixation system:
Three pinion stiffnesses act with the compressed

c shock pad stiffness to produce ke
h 4kp k s
o k =-----'--
r e ks +4kp
d
Effective acting shockpad stiffness
= 80 000 kN/m
Single pinion stiffuess

= 200 000 kN/m
giving ke = 73 x 10 3 kN/m
Thus we get 45 x 106 kNm/rad

220 x 10 3 kN/m
5.6.6f
(cont) For comparison, the values obtained from analysis using unit loads to a detailed leg and
connection model were:
ko 23 x 106 kNm/rad
kz = 200 X 10 3 kN/m
The hand calculated stiffness is conservative on the upper leg. Differences in ko may be
due to the modeling of the action points of the pinion springs, to gaps operations and to
leg bending.
A high horizontal stiffness is assumed i.e. kT = 109 kN/m
CHECKLIST FOR HULL/LEG OK?

jacking system stiffness y
orientation y
clearances no
guide, support clearances no
Wear no
construction tolerances no
backlash no
Obtain hull/leg connection springs from application of unit loadcases to the detailed leg.
The procedure is similar to that used to get equivalent leg stiffnesses. Here the full
detailed leg model (type d) is used with its hull/leg connection model and compared to a
single beam with springs at its roots.
The spring is assumed to be acting at the level of the lower guide at the leg centroid.
Loads are applied at the effective penetration. The distance between the spring position
and load application point is L.
5.6.6f
(cont) The leg stiffness properties are assumed to be known.
Here we have L 48.75 m * to be revised
A 0.581 m 2
I 6.85 m 4
E 200 x 106 kN/m2
Vertical spring stiffness, kz:
Apply P = 10000 kN, W = 0, M = O. Obtain total vertical deflection at point ofload

application Oz = 0.054m
Portion of <>z due to leg compression = PLiEA = 0.0042 m

portion of Oz due to spring compression = 0.054 - 0.0042 = 0.0498
kz = Force/defln = 1000010.0498 = 2.0xl0 5 kN/m.
Rotational spring stiffness, ko:
Apply P = 0, W = 0, M = 86800 kNm. Obtain total horizontal deflection at point of

load application ~ = 0.250m
Portion of oh due to leg bending = ML212EI = 0.0631 m

Portion of oh due to spring rotn. = 0.250 - 0.0631 = 0.187 m
ko = Moment/rotn = 86800 x 48.7510.187 = 23 x 106 kNm/rad
CHECKLIST FOR HULLILEG OK?

jacking system stiffness y assuming detailed leg
orientation y model is OK
clearances y
guide, support clearances y
Wear y
construction tolerances y
backlash y
5.6.3 d) Detailed leg 5.6.4
Single detailed 5.6.4a
leg model. Hull/leg connection 5.6.6
Spudcan 5.6.7
15.6.4.1 Guidelines on the construction of a leg model are noted as follows.
Model the following: chords, horizontal braces, diagonal braces, internal braces. Loads
will be applied near the spudcan so include a spudcan model.
15.6.4a IDefine joints coordinates as intersections of chord and brace centerlines. Simplify
some intersections. Ignore gusset plates.
Set up mesh geometry
The leg consists of a single basic unit (one bay) repeated 25 times:
Component list
3 chord sections
side of length 3 horiz. braces
8.68m defined 6 diag. braces
by horizontal 3 internal span-
intersects. / - - - \ - spanbreakers meet breakers
(chord \ J'
at horizontals
centroids
offset by
_V_
midpoints
O.06m) ilin
~ diagonals intersect horizontals at
I midpoints. with spanbreakers
Bay height
of 3.75m I
defined
by chord/
horizontal
intersects.
1 --- diagonals meet chords at same point
as horizontal braces. Offsets ignored
Bottom bay begins 6.25m above the can tip.
Properties of members
The properties of the members do not vary up the leg.
Chords: Area 0.193 m2 y
Iyy 0.0115 m4
Izz 0.026 m4
AQ 0.106 m2 z.• ) \ .. z
Itors 0.02 m4
y
5.6.4a Horizonta1/ diagonal braces:
Outside diameter 0.350 m
wall thickness 0.035 m
Internal spanbreakers:
outside diameter 0.100 m
thickness 0.006m
Material properties:
modulus of elasticity 200 x 106 kN/m 2
density 7860 kg/m 3
Checklist for detailed leg OK?

Chords included y
Horizontal braces y
Diagonal braces y
Internal braces y
Spudcan no
Joints coordinates modeling y
Gusset plates ignored y
~ Construct hull/leg connection model
For this unit the leg bending moment is shared by the jacking system and the guide
structure, with the shock pad and pinion stiffness affecting the bending moment
distribution.
Guidance notes:
jacking system to be properly modeled in terms of stiffness, orientation, clearance.
consider effects of guide and support system clearances
consider effects of wear
consider effects of construction tolerances
consider effects of backlash at gear train and between pinion and rack.
5.6.6a Upper and Lower guides
Guide contact:
Upper and lower guides restrain movement parallel to back

plate of chords and towards the rack as shown. These can
be represented by gaps in these directions. It is appropriate
to set the gaps at the correct positions with respect to the
chord beam position as constructed (as
5.6.6a
(cont) opposed to the chord centroid). Between chord beam and
gaps place springs of stiffnesses derived below. .L
T
Guides are to be stiff with respect to the adjacent structure, ~
~ Iw • wH-
so put in nominally high spring stiffnesses, in all directions
since the gaps account for degrees of freedom. /\
(leg)
6
so, for guide springs, kx = ky = kz = 10 kN/m
guide model
Lower guide position:
Nominal position is derived using the sum of leg penetration, water depth and air gap.
Cover two positions: one at a node and the other at the mid-span.
Guide lengths:
2m
IOPTION> Model guide length by a set of spring
length
connections to hull
IOPTION> Model guide by a single spring connection to

hull, and account for length in bending moment
diagram.
Here, put single connections at positions of centers of guides.
5.6.6b Jacking pinions
Use manufacturer's specified stiffness: 200,000 kN/m at pitch point for this unit.
Single rack pinions resist deflection normal to the tooth, i.e. vertically and horizontally
parallel with the rack. Sliding possible across rack. Use linear springs. Incorporate
offset of pitch point from chord neutral axis.
The pinion connection is modeled as a stiff link from the chord to represent the offset of
the pitch point from the chord beam axis. A gap is positioned at the position of the
pitch point and orientated with the normal to the tooth surface at that point. Springs are
used to represent the pitch tooth and pinion stiffness. The gaps can be sized to
represent the total clearance due to backlash, wear and tolerances.
pinion gap = O.OIm

5.6.6c The unit has no fixation system.
5.6.6d Shock pads
Shock pads are positioned at the top and the bottom of each pinion stack. The pads act
in compression. It is assumed that the upper pads are always in compression. The
shockpads have no lateral stiffness however the pinion stack is restrained horizontally,
at top and bottom, in the jack-frame.
Manufacturer' effective shockpad stiffuess = 80000kN/m

Nonlinear characteristic is not available.
Model as shown:
zero length gap so pad takes only

compression. Laterally stiff.
shock pad spring (linear but nonlinear
preferred)
4-high pinion model (see above), rigidly
linked
sliding contact for uncompressed pad
with gap and spring to allow for
load reversal
5.6.6e Jackcase and associated bracing
For this construct a representative beam structure. This is shown in figure 2. The beam
positions are such that the centroids of the jack posts are in the correct positions, as are
the centroids of the horizontal and diagonal bracing members. Some interpretation of
beam positions has been performed at the top comers ofthe jackcase to fit in guide
connections.
Beam properties are drawn from the plans:
vertical jack post beams: Area 0.150 m 2

4
Ix = Iy 1.0 m
4
I tors 1.0 m
all other beams Area 0.115 m 2

Ix = Iy 0.031 m 4
4
I tors 0.015 m
Torque equalization is discussed later.
CHECKLIST FOR HULL/LEG OK?

jacking system stiffness y
Orientation y
Clearances y
guide, support clearances y
Wear y
construction tolerances y
Backlash y
Figure 2. F.E. Model of HulllLeg Interface
PINION
SPRINGS
LOWER
GUIDE
@
o
:r::
~ u
o
:r::
u
It is assumed here that the flexibility of the structure adjacent to the lower guide is
incorporated in the lower guide connection springs.
The model is earthed at the roots of the jackhouse, and at the lower guide connections.
5.6.7 Spudcan
Model the spudcan with rigid links since we are not studying lower leg strength here.
Define a node on the leg section centroid at the elevation of the effective penetration, as
used for the 3 leg model pin-point. This will facilitate application of base loads. Link
the spudcan node to the bottom nodes of each chord by rigid links.
modeling routes
Structural models are now set up. Note their

application with seabed reaction point and
fixity (5.2, 5.3), and leg inclination (5.4).
Now move on to the next item in the FLOWCHART
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Determine Responses
DETERMINE RESPONSES OF UNIT
Determine responses (e.g. SDOF method), Section 7/Figure 7.1.
Choose more detailed:

Response calculation
(Section 7/Figure 7.1).
Response calculation ---+
including foundation
fixity
(Section 7/Figure 7.1 &
Section 6.3/Figure 6.10).
All the options for determining the unit response are considered in this section including the
SDOF method, the frequency domain and time domain detailed dynamic approaches.
The hierarchy of modeling techniques is represented in the commentary C7.5, which can be
referenced when a "more detailed response calculation" is required.
RESPONSES - general route
General 7.1
Quasi-static response 7.2
(C7.2)
Dynamics preparations 7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
7.3.4
Determine natural period (s) 7.3.5
Determine dynamic response:
inertial loadset approaches 7.3.6
or detailed dynamic analysis 7.3.7
DETERMINA nON OF RESPONSES
@] General
7.1.1 Loads consist of: dead and live loads, section 3.2
wind and hydrodynamic loads, section 4
7.1.2 Consider separately the extreme response (sections 7.2 and 7.3), and fatigue (section
7.4). A fatigue analysis is outside the scope of this study.
7.1.3 Assess the extreme response by quasi-statics with inertialloadset or by dynamics. For
typical jack-up assessments, the time-varying nature of the wave loading will amplify
the quasi-static responses and should be considered.
7.1.4 The separation between the natural period of the unit and the peak period of the wave
spectrum indicates the need for a dynamic assessment.
Consider this when the natural frequency has been obtained.
7.1.5 Note that there is no guarantee that the simple method of 7.3.6.1 will "adequately
represent results of a more rigorous analysis of any given site".
Use the simple method of7.3.6.1 to evaluate the need for dynamic analysis.
7.1.6 It is acceptable to apply dynamic effects as an inertial loadset (see 7.3.6.1) obtained
from a simple model. A detailed model can then be used to get the responses.
7.1. 7 Select load combinations according to the requirements of section 8. The following
categories of response evaluation are required:
Dead load, D: weight in air, ballast, equipment, buoyancy, permanent enclosed

liquid.
Live load, L: Variable load (maximin) placed at most onerous c of g.
Extreme load E: Assessment return period wind, wave, current load with associated
PLl
Inertial load Dn: Contribution of dynamics over and above the loads above,
including associated PLl.
(not applicable to quasi-statics)
These are applied for the assessment criteria as detailed in the table in 7.1.7.
7.1.7
(cont) The next most useful stage in the calculation is the determination of the quasi-static
response. The nature of the assessment check is such that a quasi-static response is
required as well as a fully dynamic response, although with a unit partial factor on
dynamic component Y4 = 1.0, it is possible to by-pass the quasi-static. The main
method of obtaining the quasi-static response is according to section 7.2, with the more
detailed methods discussed in the commentary, C7.2.
~
detailed
methods
C7.2
7.2
Refer to commentary for more detailed approaches. These resemble the detailed
dynamic approaches which are explored later in this document, but with unit mass
artificially set to zero.
o
7.2.1
Quasi-Static Extreme Response with Inertial Loadset
Apply deterministic, quasi-static design wave according to all the relevant requirements
of sections 3 to 6. Specific sections are drawn out below.
(3.5.1 ) From 3.5.1, Hsrp = 8.6m, and Hmax = 16.0m. It is correct here to use 3.5.1.2 for the
deterministic analysis, so that a reduced wave height is used. Thus:
Hdet = 1.60 Hsrp = 13.8m
An appropriate wave kinematics model is to be selected using section 4.4.1:
(4.4.1) Refer to figure 4.1.
= 16.0m }H / gT2 = 0.0096

= 13.s
= 9.8 1m / s d / gT2 = 0.018
= 30m
This indicates that the seventh order stream function should be used.
(4.3) Hydrodynamic forces.
(4.3.1) Check for applicability of Morison's equation:
wavelength z 200m (from theory) for the extreme wave,

125m (from theory) for the significant wave.
tubular diameter 0.35m
Therefore the wavelength is greater than five times the reference diameter and so
Morison's equation is applicable.
(4.3.2) This formulation for the drag force is used in the in-house programs. The terms CD and
D are calculated elsewhere. The velocity term Vn is a variable within the programs.
Determine the value of a to be used (relative particle velocity or not):

u = Vc + 1tBs / Tz = 2 + 1t(S.6 / 95) = 4.S} uT
Tn = 45s _0 = 22> 20
D. =10
I •
Dj
i.e. a = 1.
(4.3.3) This formulation for the inertial fluid force is used in the in-house programs. CM and A
are given elsewhere. Un is a variable within the programs.
7.2.2 The spudcan-foundation interface should normally be modeled as a pin joint unless
there is justification for using fixity, however 7.3.5.2 notes that under some
circumstances the pinned assumption may be non-conservative.
pinned 1\ fixity
foot ~~
I Pinned fOOY
From 5.2, the reaction point is 0.625m above the can tip. Simple supports are to be put
into the finite element 3 stick leg model.
------..>
I.------FiX-i
ty
Include foundation fixity, if justifiable, as a combination of horizontal, vertical and

rotational springs.
(5.3.2) Include nonlinear rotational, lateral and vertical soil springs.
(5.3.3) Upper and lower bound values should be considered as appropriate for the areas of
structure under consideration.
(6.3.4) Degree of fixity depends on:

- soil type
- spudcan characteristics
- maximum vertical footing load during installation
- foundation stress history
- structural stiffness of unit
- geometry of footings
- stress levels and load conditions under consideration
Apply springs at seabed reaction point. From 5.2 this is 0.625m above the can tip
(6.3.4.1) Estimation of foundation fixity
Fixity is assessed by considering whether the footing load combination falls within the
yield surface or not. The quantity rf is a measure of whether the load combination falls
within the
(6.1.4.1)
(cont) surface or not, so that:
rf ~ 1 load combination outside yield surface
(no fixity)
rf ::; 1 load combination lies within yield surface
(fixity)
Because the degree of fixity will affect the footing load set for a given environmental
load condition, an iterative approach must be adopted to find the equilibrium position.
In application of the method, separate types of treatment will be necessary for

"snapshot" analysis (quasi-static plus inertia) and for time domain analysis involving
numerous loadsteps.
I
time
snapshot 1\
domain
analysis ~~ analysis
"snapshot"
For a single point in time it is possible to iterate to a solution of a level fixity for a given
set of environmental loads.
SELECT INITIAL LEVEL OF FIXITY
If zero fixity is initially preferred then the footing is modeled as a pin-point, and
structural response calculations are carried out. With the resultant load set, the failure
ratio rf is determined and foundation springs derived as required. This is discussed as
an example later. An analysis where a pinned footing lead to foundation assessment
failure would follow this path in the "Response calculation including foundation fixity"
part of the FLOWCHART.
The recommended course of action if there is reason to expect foundation fixity is to

assume a failure ratio of zero (rf = 0) which enables full fixity. The calculation of the
required rotational, horizontal and vertical spring stiffnesses in such an approach is now
carried out for the unit, with the two soil types.
In preloading, assume a vertical footing load of 50000kN on each leg.
Rotational spring stiffness:
The rotational spring stiffness K3 is given by:

G B3
K =fx-.:..-f-
3 f 3(1- v)
where the effective spudcan diameter is B = 7m, and:

(6.3.4.1)
(cont) For sand (drained): - LOWER BOUND
Gr 660 S'
2
660x(VLo/A) 214285 kN/m
v 0.2
-rr/ln( l-rf) = 0
30625 kNmlrad
For clay (undrained): - LOWER BOUND

Gr 39 cu
2
39 x47 1833 kN/m
v 0.5
1 - rf o
419146 kNmlrad
Horizontal and Vertical spring stiffnesses:
These are given by the expressions

2G y B
vertical K =--
I I-v
16G h B(1- v)
horizontal K2 = x fr
7-8v
For sand:
Gy 1500(VLo/A) = 487000 kN/m 2
so KJ 8522000 kN/m
2
Gh 150(VLo/A) 48700 kN/m
so K2 808000 kN/m
For clay:
Gv 1833 kN/m2 (lower bound)
so KJ 51324 kN/m
Gh 1833 kN/m 2 (lower bound)
so K2 34216 kN/m
With footing springs established the snapshot

response calculation can be carried out, new
footing loads obtained and new springs determined.
Convergence of these load iterations indicates
when the correct fixity has been applied and the
assessment can be continued
(6.3.4.1) REVISION OF FIXITY USING CALCULATED FOOTING LOADSET
(cont)
In this example it is assumed that the first round of the fixity calculation has been
performed i.e. using the above spring stiffnesses, a response calculation has been
carried out.
First the footing load set is inspected for its position against the yield surface.
Suppose from the SDOF quasi static plus inertia approach, the following D+L+E+Dn
loadset was obtained:
Qv 32500 kN
QH 330 kN
QM 22010 kNm
i) For sand: 50000 kN as above

0.12 VLo 6000 kN
0.075 B V Lo 26250 kNm
then 0.92 < 1.0 so the point is within the yield surface
and so fr(calc) = 0.36, giving a new fr = 0.68. Using this value, spring stiffnesses are re-
evaluated and the procedure is repeated until convergence is obtained.
ii) For clay
The terms in the failure ratio equation are
HLo cuoA = 40 x 154 (assuming the (c uo + cUl)As

6160 kN term is small and can be
M Lo 0.1 VLoB conservatively ignored)
35000 kNm
This gives rf = 0.69, and so the same procedure described for sand should be followed.
For time domain calculations two approaches are offered.
~B Run a pinned case dynamics. Using spring stiffnesses obtained by quasi-

static response calculations, make conservative adjustments to the seabed
reactions only.
[XlB Start with springs calculated from a quasi-static response evaluation. Put
these into the dynamic model and perform a time domain calculation to get
the characteristic seabed reactions (e.g. most probable maximum). Using
these characteristic reactions, evaluate new spring stiffnesses and repeat
until convergence is obtained.
(6.3.4.1)
(cont) snapshot/dynamic
V
+
V end of
footing
+ options
(5.1.2) Consider a range of headings to pick out the most onerous for each assessment case.
For the three leg stick model, apply loads at 0°,30°,60°,90°, 120°, 150°, 180° for the
full unfactored quasi-static load (D + L + E)Pi1 to pick out the worst heading for each
assessment.
definition of headings w.r.t Bow
(5.1.3) For each loadcase the wave is to be stepped through the model structure to find the
worst phase. This can be done using the in-house program STA TLOAD, which
identifies max horizontal force on the leg. Run for 20s in 0.25 steps to pick out most
severe instant, then apply those loads in the Finite Element simulations.
(5.7.1) Application of Dead Loads:
Dead loads comprise weights. To model this a gravitational acceleration is applied to

the FE model which shall have suitable masses and densities.
The hull dead weight is 4800t. This is applied via a scaled hull beam element density
with lump masses applied at leg center nodes to ensure the correct center of gravity
(less than 10% of total mass in lump masses). The requisite weight is to be achieved by
first putting in guessed densities, allowing the FE package to evaluate the modeled
mass and then adjusting the scaling and lump masses before re-running. The center of
gravity of the dead load is not available, but is assumed to lie within the range specified
for dead plus live load below.
(C5.3.3) As a conservative measure apply 50% of hull sag derived in this way at suitable stages
of the analysis
The leg weight in air (excluding spudcan) is 880t which is applied as an effective leg
density. Buoyancy of 3.232 tim is subtracted from the dry leg weight per unit length in
determining an effective buoyant leg density. The spudcan dry weight is 200t and the
buoyant upthrust has been calculated as 26.1 t, so an effective buoyant spudcan element
density is obtained.
(C5.3.3)
(cont) For modeled leg area ofO.581m2 ,
wtllength effective density

(tim) (tlm 3 )
dry leg 9.387 16.157
buoyant leg 6.155 10.594
buoyant can 27.82 47.883
Application of Live loads:
The maximum variable load is 2000t, and the minimum variable load is 1000t. In
conjunction with the dead hull load, the hull center of gravity has a range of positions:
16m forward of aft leg centers ± 1.5m
Om transverse of CL ± 1.5m
The four "comer" positions shall be considered for each case, and the most onerous
positions shall be used in the subsequent analyses.
The weight modeling shall be performed in the same way as for the dead load, with hull
masses and densities scaled up as required.
Application of Environmental loads:
(5.7.2) Wind loads are applied as nodal point loads to the three leg stick model. The
distribution is adequately covered by applying loads at three elevations: for the legs
below the hull, for the hull and for the legs above the hull. The total loads for each
heading and associated elevations are integrated in the in-house program
NEWS TOWA. This procedure will ensure correct total shear and overturning moment
on each leg due to wind, and correct leg loads near the hull. For the program, the
equivalent leg model is used with the effective hull areas as calculated earlier in this
document. A more sophisticated model might consider individually every element and
member in the hull and legs, but this is not necessary here.
sample:
wind arm above
heading item force can tiQ
60° legs above hull 143.5t 79.9m
hull 296.5t 57.9m
legs below hull 4.1t 4 1. Om
legs above hull 122.3t 79.9m

hull 296.5t 57.9m
legs below hull 3.5t 40.9m
(5.7.3) The in-house program STATLOAD will be used to generate nodal loads up the legs
(approximately ten nodes per leg) representative of the correct load distribution. The
loads from the instants of maximum total horizontal hydrodynamic load shall be
applied in the finite element model for each heading. The equivalent hydrodynamic leg
model derived earlier is used in the three leg model. More detailed modeling may be
preferred.
(5.7.3) sample:
(cont)
hydro time in
heading item force wave cycle
(kN) (s)
60 maximum horiz. 16732 11.25
minimum horiz. -380 4.75
120 maximum horiz. 13807 1.50

minimum horiz. -516 5.50
(5.7.5) Second order effects can be considered in a number of ways.

(5.5.1)
large I geometric
displ. A stiffness
methods~~ methods
5.5.3 5.5.4
§ Large displacement methods
The in-house FE package includes the large displacement option, and so this shall be
used to include P~ effects
B Geometric stiffness methods
~IOPTION > Add orthogonal, horizontal spring elements between the hull center
node and earth, with negative spring constant of stiffness -P/L. This
won't work on our software.
[Xl IOPTION > Amplify linear-elastic displacement by os/(l-P/PE) manually, and

calculating additional P~ moment. This is not employed here.
5.5.3 5.5.4.
V
~
It is assumed that the full set of analyses as detailed above has been carried out and that
the most onerous cases have turned out to be 60°, maximum variable for preload and
member strength, and 120°, minimum variable for overturning and sliding. These will
be considered in detail below.
It is not held to be constructive to provide excessive and ultimately unhelpful results for
other cases. In reality the above cases have been selected from a preliminary analysis.
For accuracy, refine the storm headings to be perpendicular to leg centers i.e. apply
headings 61.7° and 118.3°.
5.5.4 Apply the following sequence ofload cases:
(cont)
D dead load only
D+L dead and live load
(D + L+ E)P~ dead, live, environmental load
with associated P~ effects.
To obtain the component parts of the response parameters for section 8, vectorially
subtract the equivalent parameters from these runs e.g. subtract the D run leeward base
vertical from the D+L run leeward base vertical to obtain the L response parameter.
The following table summarizes the results of these analyses. Note that the directions
of the load vectors are not written here, but may need to be considered at a later stage.
Minimum hull, heading at 118.3° (overturning, sliding)
D+L+E D+L D L E
footing reactions:
vertical (kN) 1 15653 29042 25680 3362 -13389
2 33425 27418 24337 3081 6007
3 36420 29042 25680 3362 7378
shear (kN) 1 4221 139 115 24 4359
2 6949 129 107 22 6887
3 6801 139 115 24 6721
Maximum hull, heading at 67.7° (structural strength, preload)
D+L+E D+L D L E
footing reactions:
vertical (kN) 1 23898 32436 25680 6756 -8538
2 23520 30530 24337 6193 -7010
3 47981 32436 25680 6756 15545
shear (kN) 1 7990 162 115 47 8081
2 8125 152 107 45 8196
3 4995 162 115 47 4832
lower guide loads:
moment (kNm) 1 213350 7166 5051 2115 211320
2 207270 6680 4708 1972 216450
3 232680 7166 5051 2115 225520
vertical (kN) 1 19038 27991 21235 6756 -8953
2 19417 26085 19892 6193 -6668
3 43499 27991 21235 6756 15508
shear (kN) 1 140 162 115 47 111
2 64 152 107 45 207
3 4311 162 115 47 4146
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Detennine Responses
5.5.4
(cont) The only surprise in these results is the leeward leg shear (leg3) at the lower guide from
the Environmental load (E) at 67.7°. This is very large due to the wave phasing. It
happens that almost all the hydrodynamic loading appears on the other two legs, and so
the base reaction is almost entirely reacted by lower guide shear.
The displacements of the unit are not checked using partial factors, and so need only be
considered after dynamics later.
To obtain the full set of required parameters for quasi-static response assessment, the
member load vectors are to be detennined. For this, some of the results from the three
stick leg analyses above are applied to the detailed leg model.
It is appropriate at this stage, before structural strength checks are carried out, to add in
extra lower guide moment due to leg offset. This is discussed in the detailed leg
application below.
Note that for the more complex three leg model with truss sections in the vicinity of the
lower guide, the critical member load vectors would mostly be available by now, but
adjustment would be necessary to account for the leg offset. This might be by hand
corrections or by application of additional leg moments to the model.
Application of loads to detailed leg model
w- With the detailed model that has been set up earlier it is

i- jackh. possible to apply nodal loads in some detail, and there is
n- considerable flexibility in the method required.
d
.... For example, with the jackhouse and lower guides

... . swl providing earth, footing reactions can be applied to the
h
Y
d
r
- "/\
spudcan at the level of the effective pin-point,
hydrodynamic loads can be applied to nodes up the leg with
magnitUde varying to represent reality, and wind loads can
"/\
.... be distributed among nodes above the sea water level and
0
-
"/\
clear of the hull. Member densities can be scaled to
I footing
reacts.
accommodate buoyancy within a gravitational field.
Here, however there is some knowledge on the critical parts of the unit and so a simpler
modeling technique is preferable. The critical members are known to be in the region
of the hull/leg connection. To correctly generate member load vectors in this region, a
small number of discrete nodal loads can be applied, so long as they are applied some
distance away from the hull. A distance of 4Y:z bays above or below the area between
the guides is suitable to allow the loading to distribute around the critical area correctly.
Two leg positions are to be considered: one with lower guide level with a horizontal
brace, and one with lower guide level with a chord mid-span. To avoid repetition, only
the latter is discussed here. Note that to ensure the most accurate load distribution in
5.5.4
(cont) the hull region, the elevations of some of the environmental loads must be adjusted for
the different positions.
Pinion equalization:
It is specified that pinions are equalized in the still water condition (D + L). This can
be done by a number of FE modeling techniques, for example iterative stretching and
compressing pinion springs until equal net spring loads are obtained under the still
water condition. Here, to avoid excessive attention to detail a simplified approach is
adopted.
The loads in the pinion model springs are noted for the D + L case, and the deviations
from the overall average pinion model spring load obtained. These deviations are then
added to or subtracted from the D + L + E simulation spring loads, to produce an
approximate "equalized" load set. This approach does not represent the redistribution
of loads onto or off the guides, as would be produced by true equalization.
Gravitational loads:
The detailed leg model is to be placed in a gravitational field. This means that if the
member densities are suitably set up, the variation in loads due to self weight will be
modeled. Since we are interested in the region near the hull, the leg material density is
iteratively adjusted until the weight of a single bay equals the expected value for the dry
leg.
As the model is not earthed at its footing, a compensating load is required. Vertical
loads are to be applied at the horizontal bracing/ chord junctions 412 bays below the
lower guide, such that the load at the lower guide is correct. Therefore the weight of
the modeled unit below the load application point must be supported. This is done by
applying a single vertical point load at the center of the spudcan model.
The additional moment due to P~ is built into the lower guide loads from the 3 leg
model run, and so linear elastic analysis is performed.
Lower guide loads:
Loads are applied to create the correct lower guide axial load. The lower guide vertical
loads are added to the weight of the 412 bays of leg and distributed evenly between the
three chord nodes for this.
The lower guide shear load is applied 412 bays below the lower guide, is distributed
evenly between the three chord nodes, and is resolved into appropriate components
based on the 3 leg model output.
The lower guide moment derived from the three leg model has to be adjusted in a
number of ways. Firstly the above application of shear load in itself generates lower
guide moment, which has to be vectorially subtracted. Secondly, the 50% of the hull
sag calculated in the three leg model runs has to be vectorially
5.5.4
(cont) subtracted. Thirdly, the additional moment due to leg offset has to be added on. It is
assumed that this is acting in the most onerous direction, namely the resultant direction
after all of the foregoing adjustments.
(5.4) In the absence of further information, the offset is 0.5% of the length of leg below the
lower guide:
offset = 0.005 x 44.61 * = 0.22m *to be revised
additional moment = seabed reaction x 0.22m
This applies to the D and (D + L) load cases as well.
The resultant moment after all adjustments is applied by means of vertical couples
across the three load application nodes.
Wind loads:
The wind loads on the hull and the legs below the hull are built into the lower guide
loads. The loads above the hull are applied to ensure correct modeling of upper guide
reactions.
Loads are applied to two nodes on each chord. The elevation of the effective wind
force on a single leg above the hull is expressed as a height above the lower guide. The
wind force is distributed between the two sets of nodes which straddle this ideal
elevation, so that the correct effective arm above the lower guide is applied.
Application to the unit:
For the detailed leg runs, the following load sets were applied:
spudcan vertical supporting force = 93,733 kN
D D+L D+L+E
loads applied 4Y:z bays below the lower guide:
vertical (MN) 22.788 29.544 45.052

shear (MN) 0.115 @62.2° 0.163 @62.3° 4.311 @60.5°
moment (MNm) 6.313 @62.2° 8.070 @62.2° 167.624 @61.0°
wind forces:
force (MN) 0.0 0.0 0.469 @61.3°

elev'n (m) 79.9m above can tip
7.2 C7.2
V
.J,.
~minary Issue, May 1994 Determine Responses
This document is arranged to indicate a progress route considering all the options on the
way, one after the other. The PRACTICE allows for repetition of stages of analysis,
albeit at different levels of complexity, so that parts of this go-by document may be
encountered twice, especially for dynamic response calculation.
7.3.1
7.3.2 Reading through these sections provides a useful introduction to various aspects.
Certain information is discussed which will be required during the calculation, whether
using finite elements or not. It is logical to prepare this information now.
7.3.2.1 a) - The structural and equipment mass, and the variable loads are the same as used
for the quasi static analysis procedure.
- Added mass has to be included.
For the equivalent leg model, the added mass per unit length ofleg is:
Aep(C Me - 1) = 4.18(1.025)(1.78 - 1) = 3.34 tim
Note that this should not be permitted to conflict with the buoyancy modeling.
b) - The stiffness of legs, leg to hull connections and spudcan-foundation interfaces

should be modeled. This has already been investigated in the setting up of leg
models.
c) - Damping is discussed in 7.3.7. It has already been decided that the relative
velocity formulation is to be used, although for some methods this is not
practicable. A nonlinear foundation model is not in use at this stage. Therefore
the applicable percentage of critical damping is:
structure, etc. 2%
foundation 2%
hydrodynamic 0% with relative velocity
3% without relative velocity
For this document the global dynamic behavior will be obtained using the 3 leg stick
model, and where required, detailed analysis completed using the single detailed leg
model.
Detailed modeling for dynamic analysis may be preferred, but this is outside the current
capability ofthis office.
7.3.3.1 Current may be steady. Wind may be represented by a steady flow of air. Wave and
current should be considered in combination (4.3), as has been done in the quasi static
analysis so far.
(4.3) For the time-varying random seastate analyses the in-house jackup suite of programs
applies the required form ofloading, assuming an equivalent leg model.
7.3.3.2 Wave period data for each analysis type is available. Use the range of periods in 3.5.1.2
or 3.5.3 at a suitable stage.
7.3.4 Refer to the flowchart in figure 7.1. For an initial estimate of dynamic amplification go
to 7.3.6.1. For random dynamic analysis go to 7.3.6.3/7.3.7. But first get the natural
period.
~ The Natural Period(s)
The natural period(s) may be determined either by a finite element structural model, or
by equation.
equation
7.3.5.3
finite elements
7.3.5.2
1 7 .3 .5 .2 > Finite element approach:
The three leg stick model is sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.
Derivation of sway stiffnesses from a detailed model has been discussed earlier in
setting up the three leg model. A similar approach could be employed for a detailed
three leg model, or for a model with foundation stiffness.
For natural period calculations, small displacements are assumed, and so nonlinear P~
effects are ignored. The added mass of the model is built in by adjusting the effective
member densities of the appropriate sections of equivalent leg:
mass/length of dry leg 9.387 t/m

added mass 3.34 t/m
for leg area 0.581 m 2 ,

effective leg density 16157 kg/m3
effective leg + added mass density =

(9.387 + 3.34) x16157
9.387
21906 kg/m3
7.3.5.2
(cont) The spudcan is assumed flooded. It both carries a volume of water and displaces a
volume of water.
spudcan steel volume

spudcan enclosed volume
spudcan dry mass 200 t
mass of water enclosed in spudcan (288-25)xl.025

270 t
added mass displaced by spudcan
assuming CM = 2.0 288(1.025)(2 - 1)
295 t
total dynamic mass 200 + 270 + 295 = 765 t
For 6.25m of spudcan model length, and 0.58lm2 area,
effective dynamic spudcan density = 210 670kg/m3
Buoyancy is omitted from this calculation. Damping is not necessary. The hull weight
is for the D + L load, maximum hull case.
mode freguency (Hz) Qeriod(s)

sway 0.223 4.48
surge
yaw
0.226
0.287
4.42
3.48
} See attached
figures 3a,3b,3c
Figure 3. First 3 Natural Modes of Vibration of Unit
.......... - - ........
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Detennine Responses
17.3.5.3) Approach using equations
The fundamental period is estimated as Tn = 21t ~M e / Ke , where

M = M hull + M + M Jb
e N Ja 2
Now, Mhul\ = 6800 t
MIa (100-1.25-25-15.36-3)x9.387
= 520 t
Mlb (1.25+25+ 15.36+3)x21.906xO.581
1066 t
N 3
So 3320 t
Also, for zero soil rotational stiffness:
Ke = -
3EI [1- ~]
x=-------=------==-------=
e [1+ 12Fg I
2+
3EI
+
7.81]
2
AFy Y FrLK rh AsFhL
Now, E = 200xl0 6 kN/m 2
I 7.10 m4
L 43.985 m
P 113 Mhul\g
6
= 0.022 X 10 kN
PE aEI
0.687 x 106 kN with a defined as the solution of
(Krs + Krh )aEI }
tanaL = --'--=-2- = " ' - - -
{ (aEI) - (K Krh )
rs
with Krs 0.0
Krh Y2h2k + ___ d 2 __
k u"----_
J 1+(2.6k ud/EAq)
4.52 x 10 7 kNm/rad
for h 8.68 m
3
kJ 73 x 10 kN/m
ku 5.4 X 1011 kN/m
d = 15. m
Aq = 0.03675 m2
so that
a = 0.022
Fg 1.125
A 0.579m
1
Fy
1+ EA + EA }
{ LKyS LKYh
0.07680
for K ys = 00
K yh = 3kj = 219 x 103 kN/m
7.3.5.3 Y 48.41m
1
YK
1 + -rh-
2EIH
0.89
for Estimated IH = 44 m 4
1+ EAs +--=----
EAs}
{ 2.6LK hs 2.6LK hh
= 1
for K hs = 00
Khh = 00
Thus we get an effective stiffness
Ke = 9.485 X 103 kN/m
and so the estimated natural period is:
Tn 21t.J332019485
Tn 3.72 s
7.3.5.4 The estimates from the two methods for natural period are 4.5s and 3.7s, which are
about the same order, but demonstrate the uncertainty described in this section.
(7.1.4) A check of figure C7.1 indicates that the second reinforcement peak of the wave force
transfer function occurs at around 4 seconds. As this is close to the estimate of the
natural period the SDOF method (7.3.6.1) may be unconservative. However, since 11 =
0.36 there is a relatively large separation between the natural period and the peak of the
wave spectrum so the difference should be relatively small.
Tn "'" 4 s) 11 = Tn/(0.9Tp) = 0.36

Tp"'" 12.4 s)
DETERMINE DYNAMIC RESPONSE
The first division in the dynamic response calculation is between inertial loadset
approaches and detailed dynamic analysis approaches. The latter tend to be the more
complete, but complicated.
detailed
dynamic
analyses
7.3.7
inertial loads
7.3.6
1
7 .3 .6 > Inertial Loadset Approaches
These approaches represent additions to the quasi-static loads determined earlier.

Inertial loads may be applied either a distributed loadset or by an equivalent point load
at the hull center of gravity. Here the latter is preferred.
For a simple approach go to 7.3.6.1. For more complex approaches go to 7.3.6.2.
other
methods
7.3.6.2
SDOF
7.3.6.1
7.3.6.9 The classical SDOF analogy.
This is the recommended first pass approach to evaluating the dynamic response, and is
quick and simple.
Calculate the DAF:
Tn/T, where 3.7s (manual calculation)

0.9Tp = 11.2 seconds.
0.33
~ 0.07 from (7.3.2.1)
7.3.6
(cont)
1
DAF
~[(1- Q2)2 + (2SQ)2]
1.12
This is greater than the lower threshold of 1.05 in the commentary. In other words, I
dynamics is worth further investigation.
If dynamics can be ruled out at this stage then

Dn = 0 and all the response parameters required for
the assessment have been obtained.
Then go the next entry in the FLOWCHART
Determine inertialloadset:
To obtain Fin it is again necessary to inspect the hydrodynamic force data in the in-
house program STATLOAD.
118.3° heading:
BS(Q-S)Max maximum hydrodynamic load 13.807 X 103 kN

BS(Q-S)Min minimum hydrodynamic load -0.516 x 103 kN
3
so BSAmplitude = 7.162 X 10 kN
(1.12 - 1) x 7.162 X 10 3 = 860 kN
61.7° heading:
BS(Q-S)Max = maximum hydrodynamic load 16.732 x 103 kN

BS(Q-S)Min minimum hydrodynamic load -0.380 x 103 kN
3
so BSAmplitude = 8.556 X 10 kN
and Fin (1.12 - 1) x 8.556 X 103 = 1026 kN
These loads should now be applied through the hull center of gravity along with the D +
L + E loads from the quasi-static analysis in a response calculation including second
order sway effects, to generate the (D + L + E + Dn)P L\ response. Vectorially
subtracting the (D -+- L -+- E)P L\ response parameters from these results yields the Dn for
application in the assessment criteria.
To apply the loads through the center of gravity, the hull model is modified slightly to
include a structural node at the c. of g.
7.3.6 Results of 3 leg model simulation:
(cont)
Minimum hull, heading at 118.3 0 (overturning, sliding)
Hull displacement for fullioadset = 0.71m
D+L+E D+L+E+Dn Dn
footing reactions:
vertical (kN) 1 15653 14778 - 875
2 33425 32819 394
3 36420 36901 481
shear (kN) 1 4221 4539 318

2 6949 7216 267
3 6801 7077 276
Maximum hull, heading at 67.7 0 (structural strength, preload)
Hull displacement for fullioadset = 0.84m
D+L+E D+L+E+Dn Dn
footing reactions:
vertical (kN) 1 23898 23315 -583
2 23520 23046 -474
3 47981 49038 1057
shear (kN) 1 7990 8360 370

2 8125 8474 349
3 4995 5303 308
lower guide loads:
moment (kNm) 1 207270 224139 16869
2 213350 229322 15972
3 232680 249238 16558
vertical (kN) 1 19417 18830 -587

2 19038 18558 -480
3 43499 44551 1052
shear (kN) 1 64 313 249

2 140 439 299
3 4311 4619 308
7.3.6
(cont) As for the quasi-static analysis, the lower guide loads and wind loads on the legs above
the hull are applied in a detailed leg model to obtain the required Dn member load
vectors for the structural strength assessment.
D + L+ E + Dn
loads applied 4Y2 bays below the lower guide:
vertical (MN): 46.105

shear (MN): 4.619 @ 60.6°
moment (MNm): 178.493 @ 60.6°
wind force:
force (MN): 0.469 @ 61.3°

elevation (m): 79.9 m above the can tip
17.3.6.213> Other approaches to obtaining an inertialloadset
An inertial load set method using the entire SDOF DAF function for all
frequencies is described in appendix C7.B.2.2. This is discussed under
detailed dynamic methods later.
IOPTION) The determination of an inertial loadset from more complex random

dynamic approaches is illustrated as follows.
It is assumed that quasi-static and dynamic MPM responses have been

calculated for both base shear and overturning moment. Values are as
follows (from drag-inertia time domain approach):
base shear: mpmeRd 9000 kN
mpmeRs 8500 kN
overturning: mpmeRd 818440 kNm
mpmeRs 779804 kNm
note: These base shears are hypothetical, and are provided for illustration.
Follow the instructions in Section 7.3.6.3/figure 7.2 or in figure C7.B.l

part 2.
Note: The following is based on an earlier simplified procedure and is to I

be updated.
17: F1i 9000 8500 500 kN
18: M1i = 818440 - 779804 = 38636 kNm
Choose to match F 1
19: Apply Fb as: 200 kN through hull centroid
100 kN through each leg centroid
7.3.6 elevation of hull centroid above can tip = 44.98m
(cont) elevation of buoyant legs centroid above can tip = 44.18m
20: M2i = 200(44.98) + 300(44.18) = 22250 kN
21: M3 i = 38636 - 22250 = 16386
22: Apply M3i as a point load through the centroid (a couple across the leg
centers might be preferable).
inertial loadset
approaches
v.J,.
Once the required response parameters have been
obtained then the next entry in the FLOWCHART may be
engaged. More detailed analysis methods are in 7.3.7.
>
Preliminary Issue, May 1994
17.3.7 Detailed Dynamic Analysis Methods.
Determine Responses
Several detailed dynamic analysis methods are now

considered. It is expected that in many analyses,
this section can be called upon to produce responses
of increasing levels of sophistication. The table in
C7.5 provides an indication of their hierarchy.
The following details apply to all methods.
although the underlying statistics are gaussian, the nonlinear forcing makes the
excitation non-gaussian, and this must be included.
the spudcan-foundation interface should be modeled as a pin joint, except when
fixity has been justified. Here it is assumed that fixity is not justified.
the relative velocity formulation has already been shown to apply in this case. From
table 7.1, total global damping (% of critical) has already been determined as 4%.
(both details in the quasi-static response section).
A Jonswap spectrum with peak enhancement factor of 2.77 has already been
identified. For random analyses the significant waveheight in 3.5.1.3 is applied:
[1 + Yzexp( -d/25)]Hsrp
9.9 m for d 30m
Hsrp = 8.6m
The first decision to be made is whether to perform calculations in the frequency or

time domains.
I
frequency 1\ time
domain ~~ domain
7.3.7
(cont)
frequency Detailed frequency domain analysis options considered

domain here are the drag-inertia parameter approach and the
analysis closed form solution, both found in the Commentary.
The notes on loading in table 7.2 should be observed.
for frequency domain calculations, linearization of the wave-current loading and the
structural response will be necessary.
the wave spectrum shall be divided into equal frequency slices (at least 200) for the
calculations.
Obtain the most probable maximum responses as directed in table 7.3. The MPM has a
63% chance of being exceeded by the maximum of anyone three hour storm. Within a
three hour storm, this level is reached by one in one thousand peaks on average.
There are two options for frequency domain analysis. First go to the commentary
Appendix C7.B.
drag- I closed
)C7.B) inertia
parameter
C7.B.2.1
A form
solution
C7.B.2.2
C7.B.2.1
drag-inertia
parameter
The first step is to obtain the quasi-static part and the inertial part of the total dynamic
response, calculating the means and standard deviations. This is done in the frequency
domain using Figure C7.B.3.
Assuming a frequency domain analysis has been carried out, the mean quasi static and
dynamic responses are available, as are the corresponding transfer functions between
wave elevation and response parameter. These transfer functions are for the required
wave and current loading.
The inertial transfer function can be obtained as indicated. Spectral analysis techniques
will yield the standard deviations of quasi-static, inertial and dynamic responses as
indicated.
With the above information the method in Figure C7.B.4 produces the extreme
response. This has been carried through in the time domain examples later; the
capability to produce the required frequency domain calculations was not available in
this office at the time of production of the Go-by document.
C7.B.2.2 This is the application of the method proposed by

closed form Jensen and Pedersen ofthe University of Denmark.
solution
Step 1
Illustrative maxima and minima from the time histories of overturning moment are
tabulated below for a range of waveheights with the assessment current loading. The
periods have been constrained to fit the relationship:
T = 1 + 4.lH°.4
Note that for the calculations, a value H' = 0.86H has been input to be consistent with
Section 3.5.1.2 of the PRACTICE.
H(m) H'(m) ill} OTMmax (kNm) OTMmin (kNm)

14.2 12.21 12.85 599060 -13 343
8.0 6.88 10.4 243705 21 109
0.0 0.0 99385 99385
Step 2
These data points are used to obtain the coefficients Ai in a cubic expansion. The
notation Yo is used for overturning moment.
Yomax (T = 12.85s) Ao + 7.1 AI + 50.41 A2 + 357.9 A3 = 599060.

Yomin (T = 12.85s) Ao - 7.1 AI + 50.41 A2 357.9 A3 = -13343.
Yomax (T = lO.4s) Ao + 4.0 AI + 16.00 A2 + 64.0 A3 = 243705.
Yo(H = 0) Ao 99385.
Hence, Yo(t) = 99385. + 24343.h(t) + 3838.h2(t) + 372.6 h\t)
This gives satisfactory values for response maxima in the expected range of wave
periods, but is not accurate for the minima, as can be seen by investigating Yomin(T =
lO.4s). Here we are only interested in the maxima, so the approximation will suffice.
To obtain the coefficients ai, divide the coefficients Ai by (Hsl4)i = (8.6/4.0)i, giving for
a stochastic sea:
Yo(t) = 99390. + 52340.U(t) + 17740.U2(t) + 3703 U\t)
This yields the percentiles of the quasi-static response on substitution of suitable

percentiles of the standard normal process U(t).
(7.3.7) The most probable maximum peak value in a 3 hour storm has a 111000 probability of
occurrence.
(C7.B) With a Rayleigh distribution of peaks, the value ofU corresponding to the 111000 peak
is U = .J2ln 1000 = 3.72. Substituting this in the above equation gives:
MPM Quasi-static Response (excluding wind) = 729200.kNm
Step 3
We have already calculated the dynamic characteristics of the unit which are:
natural period 4.48 s i.e. COo = 1.402 radls
damping ratio ~o = 0.07
Accepting the wave spectrum modeling strategy in this step gives the parameters
{Og = 21t/Tp = 0.507 and ~g = 0.222.
The dynamic response is obtained by inputting the above terms in the program
MOMENTS by J Juncher Jensen. This delivers the statistical moments of the response
process:
mean 117100 kNm

variance 14.49 x 109 (kNm)2
skewness 0.6283
kurtosis 5.739
With these, the program constructs the dynamic response process as a cubic polynomial
in the standard normal process U(t):
yet) = 107900. + 98020.U(t) + 9204.U2(t) + 6825 U3(t)
Substituting again U = 3.72 for the 111000 peak gives:
MPM dynamic response (excluding wind) = 949900 kNm
and a dynamic amplification factor of 9490001729200 = 1.30. Wind can be added in

with little difficulty.
freq. domain
V
~
With all response parameters required for the

assessments obtained by either of the above detailed
methods, this pass of the response calcs is complete.
Go to the next entry in the FLOWCHART
time There are several ways of performing detailed time domain

domain analysis. Some are costly on computing time, and so econ-
analysis omies have been made to reduce the number of simulations
actually carried out for the sample calculations.
Observe the guidelines on loading in table 7.2:
A random sea has been generated using 200 divisions ofthe spectrum with equal energy
content. Checks on validity:
mean elevation 0.0 m OK

standard deviation 2.577 m )
Hsig/4 2.55 m ) OK
skewness -0.034 OK
kurtosis 3.03 OK
<i.e. wave is gaussian>
MPM crest 9.426 m )
(Hsig/4)J21n(n) 8.79 m ) OK
W AVE SIMULAnON MEETS CHECKS
Select the integration timestep:

T / 20 = 0.48S} .
T: / 20 = 0.24s tlmestep of 0.25s selected
Avoid transients by skipping 150s of response simulation.
Select simulation length:
This depends on the method selected and the quantities used. For example a calculation
using Winterstein's polynomials will require stable mean, standard deviation, skewness,
kurtosis and zero upcrossing frequency, whereas the drag-inertia parameter approach
merely requires stable mean and standard deviation.
To avoid excessive demand on the in-house computing facilities all of the sample
calculations have been performed on a one hour simulation. In some cases, this is
insufficient for an accurate analysis, but it was held to produce sufficiently realistic
results for sample calculations.
Perform simulations as required in table 7.3:
Simulations were carried out using the in-house nonlinear random dynamics suite of
programs. In these, P-delta effects are included in the dynamic response by generating
additional moments due to structure weight applied at the deflected position at the
previous timestep. Combined wave/current particle velocities were used in determining
the hydrodynamic loading on the legs. All other loads are applied as for the quasi-static
plus inertial analysis approach.
C7.B Four approaches to detailed dynamic time domain analysis are recommended:
drag-inertia parameter C7.B.2.1

Weibull distribution C7.B.2.3
Gumbel distribution C7.B.2.4
Winterstein C7.B.2.5
C7.B.2.1
drag-inertia
parameter
At least 60 minutes of simulation are likely to be necessary.
Obtain means and standard deviations of the quasi-static and dynamic responses, and
the standard deviation of the inertial part, according to figure C7.B.2. Two simulations
can achieve this: one with full dynamic response, and one with only the quasi-static
response to the waves. Following the approach in C7.2, the latter is obtained by
repeating the full dynamic simulation, but using a model with negligible vibrational
masses.
In all four simulations are required: full dynamic, quasi static, quasi-static with Cm= 0,
quasi-static with Cd = O.
Check that the simulation length is suitable:
Response mean and standard deviation should be stable. The following overturning
moments were obtained after 2500s of simulation and after 3600s of simulation:
after after
2500s 3600s
dynamic mean (kNm) 411100 411200

std.dev. (kNm) 101900 102300
q-static mean (kNm) 410080 410090

std.dev. (kNm) 46990 46520
These results appear to be stable, and so the simulation length is suitable for this
method.
Using Figure C7.B.2 an inertial time series is obtained from the difference between the
dynamic and quasi-static time senes. This has a negligible mean and a standard
deviation of 116900 kNm.
Further preliminary processing is to be carried out according to C7.B.5. The following

overturning moments are obtained from the quasi-static simulations for zero Cd and
zero Cm:
C7.B.2.1
Cd = 0 std.dev. (kNm) 6762
Cm = 0 std.dev. (kNm) 45929
These results show the relatively high importance of the drag part of the response.
Obtain CRs from box ge.

D = 367432 kNm}
M = 25019 kNm Crs = 7.93
S =46424 kNm
IVII OPTION> Obtain C, from box 9d.

.J,.. The drag-inertia parameter K Rs = 1.0474
From figure C7.B.6, Crs = 7.5
Now apply the method in Figure C7.B.4.
7: PR -0.493
8: DAFI 2.20
9: C Rs 7.93
10: CRi 3.7
11 : mpmRd 407240kNm
12: DAF2 1.104
13: CRd 3.98
14: mpmeRs 779804 kNm
15: mpmeRd 818400 kNm
16: DAF3 1.049
By this method we get the overturning moment extremes:

D + L + E + Dn 818400 kNm
D+L+E 779804 kNm
38596 kNm
2 2
It is noted that here aD < a/ + ai , which for a regular wave would imply a phase lag
of over 90 degrees. This is not yet fully understood.
C7.B.2.3 The distribution (of peaks) is matched to a Wei bull

Weibull distribution. Over five storms shall be used. Simulation
distribution length shall be checked.
As for the Gumbel illustration, one storm of duration one hour has been used to
generate the sample values.
The storm has already been checked for Gaussianity.
The simulation has already been shown to meet the requirements of table 7.2.
1: The mean of the response is 411200 kNm.
2: There are 298 maxima in the sample.
3: The maxima are placed into 20 groups of magnitude between 0.0 and 925564
kNm (maximum peak 916400 kNm) to generate a distribution of peak values. e.g.
no. of
band peaks p.d.f.
0.0 to 46278 68 0.2282
46279 92556 77 0.2584
92557 138835 56 0.1879
138836 185113 37 0.1242
185114 231391 23 0.0772
231392 277669 13 0.0436
277670 323947 7 0.0235
323948 370226 4 0.0134
370227 416504 2 0.0067
416505 462782 1 0.0033
462783 509060 1 0.0033
509061 555338 0 0.0000
555339 601617 1 0.0033
601618 647895 1 0.0033
647896 694173 2 0.0067
694174 740451 1 0.0033
740452 786729 2 0.0067
786730 833008 0 0.0000
833009 879286 1 0.0033
879287 925564 1 0.0033
4: The parameters in the Wei bull distribution are obtained by deriving the start
values, evaluating the error terms OJ and minimizing the sum of the Oj2 e.g. by a
"Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm".
The in-house program RANEX generates parameters as follows:

a 117858 kNm
~ 1.2756
Y 26536 kNm
C7.B.2.3
(cont)
5: Obtain Rmpm as the solution of
F(Rmpm,a,~,y) = 1 - 1/(298(3/1)) = 0.99888

I.e.
Rmpm = 555914 kNm
6: Rmpme = 967114 kNm
7: No other response parameters are to be considered here.
According to table 7.3, at least five MPME values calculated in this way should be
averaged.
The above method yields corresponding values for the quasi-static simulations, from
which the Dn response parameters can finally be separated.
C7.B.2.4 Multiple simulations are required with stable kurtosis

Gumbel for this option.
distribution
Generate ten 3-hour response simulations. Here, for the sample calculations the method
is tested using just one one-hour storm, with ten artificial random variations in the
extreme response.
Check stability of kurtosis:

kurtosis in OTM after 2500s 4.766 )
after 3600s 4.165 )
In a proper analysis this would not be accepted as showing stability of kurtosis.

However, the results of the storm are accepted for this illustration.
Maximum overturning moment in the storm: 916400 kNm

A further nine random perturbations about this value are taken for the illustration:
930006 kNm
909750 kNm
925709 kNm
899009 kNm
880288 kNm
949545 kNm
876094 kNm
965402 kNm
967038 kNm
Apply the maximum likelihood method to get the parameters \j1 and K.
The cumulative distribution F3h (x) is in one variable x, with two parameters \j1 and K.
The probability density function fx(x) is:
dF 3h (x)
dx
(l/k)exp[-e- V - v] where v = (x-\j1)
-K-
f(x;\j1, K) say
The likelihood estimator method defines a function L which takes into account the
assumption that the likelihood of obtaining a particular sample Xi is proportional to the
pdf at Xi. We have ten samples of Xi here.
We define L(x], .... ,XlO;\j1,K) = logeTI f(x i , \j1, K)
i
This function can define a surface over \j1, K space. Its maximum turning point defines
the maximum likelihood estimator in \j1 and K.
Therefore, solve for \j1 and K:
~~dL = 0)
-=0
dK
C7.B.2.4
(cont)
These eventually boil down into two simultaneous equations:
10
L exp[-(xj - 'JI / K] = 1
j
10
L[(X j - 'JI / K][I- exp[-(Xj - 'JI) / K] = 10
j
Using a program to solve these for the ten overturning moments,
'JI 906750 kNm

K 27400
Hence, MPME 906750 - (27400)ln[-ln(0.37)]

906908 kNm
A similar procedure will generate the quasi-static MPME, and so the Dn overturning
moment can be obtained.
C7.B.2.5 This approach requires one simulation for a given

Winterstein parameter of interest.
option
The input seastate has been checked for Gaussianity.
The method requires stable skewness, kurtosis and zero upcrossing rate in addition to
the mean and standard deviations which were checked in the drag-inertia parameter
approach. As before, the values for the simulation are checked against those for a
shorter interval.
after after
quantity 2500s 3600s
skewness 0.5708 0.4815

kurtosis 4.766 4.165
rate/upcross 0.0732 0.0739
These would NOT normally be accepted as showing sufficient convergence, and a

longer simulation time would then be required. Here, the results are expected to show
representative patterns, and so the simulations are used FOR ILLUSTRATION.
The method is applied in the in-house program MOSAP, which generates the quantities
as follows:
full quasi-
step quantity dynamic static
1 mean fl 411200 kNm 410900 kNm
std. dev. a 102300 kNm 45320 kNm
skewness U3 0.4815 1.713
kurtosis <l4 4.165 8.425
2 upcross N 266 334
rate Yo 0.0739 S-l 0.09278 S-l
3 S 0.0309 [since the kurtosis of
4 h3 0.0658 this simulation
14 0.0365 exceeds 5.0, it
K 0.992 is necessary to
apply the more
5 U mpm 3.8186 complete
solution of
6 ZMPM 6.276 J Juncher Jensen,
which yields ...
7 R MPMe 1053172 kNm 788190 kNm
C7.B.2.5 With step 7 the required quantities are obtained, and the Dn part of the response can be
separated.
detailed
time-
series
methods
With all response parameters required for the

assessments obtained by any of the time domain
methods, this pass of the response calc. is complete.
Go to the next entry in the FLOWCHART
freq'vtime
dom. dom.
All detailed dynamic analysis methods have now been considered.

Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Assess structure/O.T.
STRUCTURAL AND OVERTURNING ASSESSMENT
Assess structure and overturning, Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.5 & 8.6.
~
This is the first part of the load and resistance assessments. Foundations are considered in the
next FLOWCHART item.
Failure of the unit at this stage leads either to more detailed response determination or to
unsuitability of the unit.
Structure assessment - route
Leg members 8.1

Overturning 8.2
Holding system 8.5
Holding structure 8.5
(8.1)
Hull 8.6
8 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
In the following assessments the load terms are functions of the factored load set and
the response terms are functions of the factored resistance vector. The load set is
generally in intermediate parameters, for example overturning moment or member
loads, as opposed to wave height. Load functions can be as simple as base vertical
reactions, or as complex as member unity checks.
Dividing the factored load vector function by the factored resistance vector function
gives the unity check for each limit state.
The unit is assumed to meet the relevant building standards.
~ Structural Strength Check (applied to leg members)
The flowchart in figure 8.1 of the PRACTICE may be followed to obtain the terms in
the member strength equations.
8.1.1.1 Code Basis
This section gives guidance on where to find assessment formats suitable for
geometries outside the code.
If checking high Rlt tubulars (possibly with stiffeners) go to 8.1.5 as directed below.
If checking joints, follow the guidance in 8.1.6 as directed below.

8.1.1.2 The geometrical requirements of8.1.2 must be satisfied, or else go to 8.1.5 as directed
below.
The minimum yield stress in the members must not exceed the stipulated limits.
Here, elastic finite element analysis was used to determine the member loads, and so
the specified minimum yield stress of the strongest component material must not
exceed 690 MN/m2 .
horizontal braces: 450 MN/m2
diagonal braces: 450 MN/m2
chords: 700 MN/m2
internal braces: 240 MN/m2
Technically, the chords exceed the stipulated limit, but only by a very small amount, so
make the decision to apply the code. If the original AISC code were metric it would
probably have accepted the chords.
Check that using closed section brace and chord scantlings in truss-type legs: OK.
8.1.2 Definitions
The following elements are to be classified as members:

chord lengths between bracing junctions
diagonal, horizontal and internal bracings between bracings junctions
Members are to be assessed according to 8.1.4 unless their geometry falls into the
classifications in this section.
i) Check Rlt of plain tubulars.
For horizontal and diagonal bracings: Rlt 5.

44815/Fy 100.> Rlt
Therefore assess these elements to 8.1.4.
For internal bracings: Rlt 8.3

44815/Fy 187.> Rlt
Therefore assess these elements to 8.1.4.
ii) None of the tubulars has ring stiffeners
iii) None of the tubulars has longitudinal stiffeners.
The following are to be treated as structural components:
backplates in chord members stiffened component

sideplates in chord members stiffened component
racks in chord members unstiffened component
8.1. 3 Factored Loads
The load vector for a member comprises the axial load, the bending moments, and
possibly the shear loads and torsional moment.
Load vectors are to be obtained for each ofthe D,L,E and Dn cases (as carried out in the
detailed leg model analysis), and combined to give a factored load vector.
From a preliminary survey of the load vectors, the following members are to be
considered in full detail:
compression chord spanning the lower guide

tension chord in the bay below the bottom pinion
horizontal bracing opposite the bottom pinion.
These are now considered in tum.

8.1.3 COMPRESSION CHORD SPANNING LOWER GUIDE
(cont)
Highest bending moments are at the lower guide

<LG node. Note that according to 5.6.6 a) the
bending moments should be adjusted to account
for the finite guide length, but this is not
carried out here for a conservative check.
Load vector:
case axial (MN) Myy(MNm) Mzz(MNm)
D -7.603 0.013 0.059

L -2.416 0.064 0.021
E -19.187 6.281 -3.500
Dn -1.208 0.439 -0.375
For the following partial load factors:

"{I = 1.0
"{2 = 1.0
"{3 = 1.0
"{4 = 1.0
The factored load vector becomes:
axial load: 30.414 MN compression

moment Myy: 6.797MN
momentM zz : 3.795 MN
where the y-axis runs parallel to the rack plate.

8.1.3 TENSION CHORD BELOW BOTTOM PINION
(cont)
Highest loads are at the lower end of this member.
Load vector:
case axial (MN) Myy(MNm) Mzz (MNm)

D -5.911 1.236x10-3 0.270
L -2.013 0.390x10-3 0.l20
E 16.138 7.809x10-3 2.766
Dn 1.098 -1.390x10-3 0.l90

"{I = 1.0
"{2 = 1.0
"{3 = 1.0
"{4 = 1.0
axial load: 9.312 MN tension

momentM yy : 0.008 MN
momentM zz : 3.346 MN
where the y-axis runs parallel to the rack plate.

8.1.3 HORIZONTAL BRACE AT LEVEL OF LOWEST PINION
(cont)
Highest loads are at the end of the member
attached to the chord.
This is the most severely loaded tubular.
Load vector:
case axial CMN) MyyCMNm) Mzz CMNm)
D -0.840 -0.023 -0.0064

L -0.376 -0.011 -0.0029
E -5.595 -0.196 -0.0390
Dn -0.347 -0.011 -0.0026

'YD 1.0
'YL 1.0
'YE 1.0
'YDn 1.0
axial load: 7.158 MN compression

moment Myy: -0.241 MN
moment Mzz: -0.051 MN
The user should now go to the assessment section identified for the member in
question. If no specific direction has been given to another section at this stage,
assessment should be to the provisions in 8.1.4.
excluded
geometries joints
.... _+--....
~
8.1.5 .... , 8.1.6
""',.
8.1.4
8.1.4 Assessment of members
- excluding stiffened and high Rlt ratio tubulars
The structure of this section is well set out in the
v flowchart in figure 8.1. Several of the subsections

are mutually exclusive, depending on whether the member
is in tension or compression, etc.
Therefore it was decided that the most useful format of the GO-BY
document would be to take typical members and follow their
options through. This is done below for the three critical
members identified above.
The terms in the general interaction equations are obtained in subsequent subsections.
Once these are obtained, the analysis returns to 8.1.4.1.
The examples include both non-tubular and tubular members.
e non-tubular in compression
non-tubular in tension
tubular in compression
member in Axial load 8.1.4.1
compreSSIOn Axial strength 8.1.4.3
Eff. moment load 8.1.4.5
Bending strength 8.1.4.6
Exponent 11 8.1.4.7
Assessment 8.1.4.1
Example 1. Compression chord member
This is the member spanning the lower guide node, as described earlier.
0pu = 30.414 MN compression from detailed leg model.
In the interaction equations, the x-axis corresponds to the model z-axis, i.e. parallel to
the backplate. The y-axis is parallel to the rackplate.
§]Nominal axial strength for a member in compression
Check the components for local buckling.
the backplate is stiffened along two edges.

Bi 1.00 m
ti 0.065 m
Fyj 700 MN/m2
Fr 114 MN/m2
b j / tj = 15.4}component not suscepitble

625/ ~Fyj - Fr = 25.8 to local buckling
the sideplates are stiffened along two edges.

Bj 0.90 m
tj 0.040 m
Fyj 700 MN/m2
Fr 114 MN/m2
b j / tj = 22.5} component not suscepitble

625/ ~Fyj - Fr = 25.8 to local buckling
the rack is stiffened along one edge.
Assume no rack teeth contribution.

Bj 0.40 m
tj 0.14 m
Fyj 700 MN/m2
b j / tj = 2.8} component not suscepitble

250/ .JF:: = 9.4 to local buckling
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Assess structure/G.T.
8.1.4.3
(cont) Thus none of the components in the section fails the check for local buckling, and so
the strength in 8.1.4.3 a) applies.
Had any of the components in the section failed this check, the strength in 8.1.4.3 b)
would have been applicable.
member with slender components

I-------.~ 8.1.4.3b
[not applicable here]
Pn = A Fer
where A and Fer are obtained as follows.
A 0.193 m 2
Fer ?
K 1.0
t 3.75 m (brace point-brace point)
r .J0.0115/0.193 = 0.244m minimum
FYeff 700 MN/m 2, assuming that Fy is less than 5/6 Fu for this material
(information not available)
r
200x 10 MN/m 2
3
E
Ae : {F~IT = 0289
since Ae < 1.5,

676 MN/m2
(A. 2)
Fer [0.658 ' ]FYeff
And so,
Pn = 130MN
~ Effective Applied Moment for Members in Compression

Mue = B Mu for each of the X,y headings.
where Band Mu are defined as below.
First check the suitability of the analysis.
global P~ included? - yes

local loads included? - yes
member represents leg? - no
The modeling matches the description in i).

8.1.4.5 Therefore,
(cont)
Mux and Muy are the applied loads identified above.
B Crn/(1 - Pu/P e) ;?: 1.0 for each direction.
Pu 31.41 MN
Pex n 2r/AE/(Kt)2 = 3636 MN
Pey n 2r/AE/(Kt)2 = 1609 MN
Crnx ?
C rny ?
The member is loaded by the lower guide between ends.
For a centrally loaded member, restrained at its ends (?), a value of 0.85 is appropriate.
Crnx 0.85
C rny 0.85
so,
Bx --+ 0.857 < l.0, so set Bx 1.0

By --+ 0.87 < l.0, so set By 1.0
Thus Muex = 3.795 MNm

MJID' = 6.797 MNm
18.1.4.6 1Nominal Bending Strength
Apply standard techniques to get Mp (calculated for zero axial load).
There is just one material in the section. It is assumed that Fy is limiting, and not 5/6F u
For no axial load,
Mpx 44.23 MNm

Mpy = 21.0 MNm
Check for susceptibility to Lateral Torsional Buckling.
Lb 3.75 m
r 0.244 m
J = 0.043 m 4
A 0.193 m 2
Lb I r = 15.4 }section is not susceptible
to lateral torsional
25680~(JA) IMp = 12.6 minimum buckling.
Continue with this section.
8.1.4.6
(cont) Had the section failed this check then it would have had slender components and
8. 1A.6c) would have been applicable from here.

~ 8.1.4.6 c
f - - - - - -...
""'~ [not applicable here]
Check for local buckling of the components.
The following are identified as web components: rack, sideplates.

The following are identified as flange components: backplate.
Try the criteria for compact sections:

backplate component, stiffened along two edges.
b 1.00 m
t = 0.065 m bit < Ap, so component meets compact
2
Fy 700 MN/m section check.
Ap 5001.JF: = 19
sideplate component, stiffened along two edges.

b 0.90 m
t 0.04m bit> Ap so component does not meet
Ap 19 as above the compact section check.
Therefore, try the noncompact section check. The backplate will pass this and so need
not be further checked.
2
Fr 114 MN/m
Ar 6251 ~[Fy - Fr] bit < Ar so component meets the
25.8 non-compact section check.
rack component, stiffened along one edge.

B 0040 m
O.l4m bit < Ar so component meets the
2781 ~r-[F-yw---F-r] non-compact section check
== 11.5
All components in the section have now been checked, and so the member is non-
compact. The nominal bending strength follows in the same subsection.
For non-compact sections the nominal bending strength is given by:

8.1.4.6 for the most slender component (sideplate):
(cont)
bit 22.5
Ap = 19.
Ar 25.8
Mrx min[(Fyw - Fr)Sx, Re FyfS x]
24.4MNm
for Fr 114 MN/m2
Sx 0.0416 m 3
Fyf = Fyw = 700 MN/m2
Re 1.0
similarly,
Mry 16.03 MNm
Hence: Mnx 34.0 MNm
Mny = 18.4 MNm
~ Determine 11
For this member a value of11 can be determined by analysis, either from this
t subsection, or from equations in the commentary. Alternatively a conservative value of

1.0 maybe used.
IOPTION) Apply conservative 11 = 1.0
IOPTION) Derive suitable value from method in 8.1.4.7.

1. For illustration only the angles q = 0°, 60°, 90° are tackled.
Allowable bending strengths are as follows:

q = 0° Mng = 34.0 MNm
q = 60° Mng = 30.9 MNm (see below)
q = 90° Mng = 18.4 MNm
Method for getting Mng for q = 60°:

graphically determine the plastic neutral axis for the angle of bending and
zero axial load, and obtain Mpq-
Mpg = 46.2 MNm
calculate the elastic buckling strength Mrg for the angle of bending.
Mrg = 16.5 MNm
Since the section is known to be noncompact, the same equation as applied
above for Mnx shall be used to get Mng.
2. Set Mug = Mng = 30.9 MNm for q = 60°
3. Resolve: M'uex 30.9 cos 60° 15.45 MNm

M'uey 30.9 sin 60° 26.76 MNm
8.1.4.1 4. Solve for 11:

(cont)
15.4}11 +
{{ 34.0
{26.8}11}~
18.4
I.e.
0.45411 + 1.451 11 = 1.0
But this does not have a solution for 1.0 ::::; 11 : : ; 2.0 .
... This section to be revised/expanded.
Refer to equations in commentary.
... To be expanded.
~With all the terms in the interaction equations determined, assessment of the member
can be completed.
Pu 30.41 MN )
Pn 130 MN ) Pu/<PaPn = 0.275> 0.2
<Pa 0.85 )
Muex 3.80 MNm

Muey 6.80 MNm
Mnex 34.0 MNm
Mney 18.4 MNm
b 0.9
11 1.0 (only available result - conservative)
So, check
0.275 +~{ 0.1241.0 + 0.4101. 0}XO
9
0.275 + 0.475 = 0.75 < 1.0 OK.
Thus the member passes the strength assessment criterion.

member in Axial load 8.1.4.1
tension Axial strength 8.1.4.2
Bending strength 8.1.4.6
(Exponent 11 8.1.4.7)
Assessment 8.1.4.1
Example 2. Chord member in tension
This is the member below the lowest pinion, as described earlier.
8.1.4.1 Pu 9.312 MN tension from detailed leg model.
1.0 as determined for the compressed chord above.
In the interaction equations, the x-axis corresponds to the model z-axis, i.e. parallel to
the backplate. The y-axis is parallel to the rackplate.
~Nominal axial strength for a member in tension

As before, it is assumed that Fy is less than (5/6)Fu for the chord materials, as no value
for Fu is available. No contribution from rack teeth is considered.
For the member,

Pn = FyminI.Ai
= 700 x 0.193 = 135.1 MN
18.1.4.4 1Effective Applied Moment for Members in Tension
Verify that: - analysis includes global P~ O.K.

- local loading is accounted for O.K.
Therefore effective loads equal applied loads:

Muex = 3.346 MNm
Muey = 0.008 MNm
I
18.1.4.6 Nominal Bending Strength
As for the chord member in compression:

Mnx 34.0 MNm
Mny = 18.4 MNm
§ ] With all the terms in the interaction equations determined, assessment of the member
can be completed.
8.1.4.1
Pu =
10.49 MN}
Pn = 135 MN Pu / <PaPn = 0.086 < 0.2
0.90 MN
Muex 3.35 MNm

Muey 0.008 MNm
Mnex 34.0 MNm
Mney 18.4 MNm
<j)b 0.9
11 = 1.0 (only available result - conservative)
So, check
0.077 {
- - + 0.1091.0 + 0.00051.0 } 111.0
2.0
0.038 + 0.110 = 0.148 < 1.0 OK.

tubular in Axial load 8.1.4.1
compressIOn Axial strength 8.1.4.3
Bending strength 8.104.6
Exponent 11 and
Assessment 8.104.1
Example 3. Compressed tubular brace
This is the horizontal brace at the level of the lower guide, as described earlier.
7.158 MN compression from detailed leg model.

2.0 as the member is purely tubular.
In the interaction equations, the x-axis corresponds to the model z-axis, and the y-axis
is as modeled.
~Nominal axial strength for a member in compression

Check the tubular for local buckling.
R 0.175 m
t 0.035 m
Fyi 450 MN/m2
R/ t = 5.0 } component not susceptible
11380/ FYi = 25.3 to local buckling
Thus the tubular does not fail the check for local buckling, and so the strength in 8.104.3
a) applies.
Had any of the components in the section failed this check, the strength in 8.104.3 b)
would have been applicable.

1------6~ 8.1A.3b
... ,. [not applicable here]
Pn = A Fer
where A and Fer are obtained as follows.

2
A 0.0346 m
Fer ?
K 0.8
t 4.34m (brace point center-brace point center
This is more conservative)
r 0.112m
8.1.4.3 F Yeff = 450 MN/m2, assuming that Fy is less than
5/6 Fu for this material
(information not available)
E 200 x 10 MN/m2
3
Kt{F
f1t ~ff }X = 0.468
since Ae < 1.5 ,
411 MN/m2
(A 2)
Fer [0.658 ' ]FYeff
And so,
Pn = 14.2 MN
~ Effective Applied Moment for Members in Compression

Mue = BMu
where Band Mu are defined as below.
First check the suitability of the analysis.

global Pd included? - yes
local loads included? - yes
member represents leg? - no
The modeling matches the description in i).
Therefore,
Mux and Muy are the applied loads identified earlier.
B Cm/(l - Pu/Pe) ~ 1.0 for each direction.
Pu 7.16 MN
Pex 2
1t r2AE/(Kt)2 71.2 MN
Pey 2
1t r2AE/(Kt)2 71.2 MN
Cmx ?
Cmy ?
The member is not loaded between supports, so
C mx = 0.6 - 0.4(M]/M 2)
0.6 - 0.4(0.0482/0.0509) 0.222
C my 0.6 - 0.4(0.107/0.241) 0.422
so,
Bx ---+ > 0.245 < 1.0, so set Bx = 1.0
By ---+ > 0.469 < 1.0, so set By = 1.0
Thus
Muex 0.051 MNm
Muey 0.241 MNm
18.1.4.6 1Nominal Bending Strength
Apply standard techniques to get Mp.

There is just one material in the section. It is assumed that Fy is limiting, and not 5/6Fu
For no axial load,
Mp = 1.569 MNm for all headings
Check for susceptibility to Lateral Torsional Buckling.
Lb 4.34 m
r O.l12m
J 8.698 x 10-4 m4
A 0.0346 m 2
38.75 ) section is not susceptible

) to lateral torsional
25680J(JA) IMp 90.0 ) buckling.
Continue with this section.
Had the section failed this check then it would either be noncompact or would have had
slender components and sections 8.1.4.6 b) or c) would have been applicable from here.

1------.~ 8.1.4.6 c or
"III'" non-compact sections 8.1.4.6 b)
Check for local buckling of the section.
The entire tubular is considered as a component for this check.
Try the criteria for compact sections:

R 0.175 m
t 0.035 m tubular meets compact
Fy 450 MN/m 2 section check.
7140lF y 15.9
The member has been shown to be compact. The nominal bending strength follows in
this subsection.
For compact sections the nominal bending strength is given by Mn = Mp:

Mnx 1.569 MNm
Mny = 1.569 MNm
. Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Assess structure/O.T .
8.1.4.1 With all the terms in the interaction equations determined, assessment ofthe member
can be completed.
Pu =
7.16 MN}
Pn = 14.24 MN Pj<PaPn = 0.622 > 0.2
0.85
Muex 0.051 MNm

Muey = 0.241 MNm
Mnex 1.569 MNm
Mney 1.569 MNm
<Pb 0.9
11 2.0
So, check
0.591 + ~{0.0362°+0.1712°r2.o
9
0.591 + 0.155 = 0.75 < 1.0 OK.
examples 1.
This concludes the strength assessment examples.
The go-by document returns to its original

exploration of all avenues.
~ Overturning Stability
8.2.1 The critical heading for overturning was determined at an early stage to be 118.3°. For
this there are two leeward legs.
8.2.2 Overturning moments are to be worked out from components of environrnentalloads

applied at suitable elevations. Footing reactions contain this information along with the
P 8 effects, and so are used here.
To calculate the overturning moment, multiply the windward leg footing vertical
reaction by the perpendicular arm to the overturning axis (for no footing fixity
moment).
;'
,/I;' Overturning
". Axis
./
• Leg centres at footing
Using the reactions from the quasi-static + inertial analysis,

ME VI x 48.41 648.2 MNm )
Mon = V I x 48.41 42.4 MNm )
For partial load factors:

YE 1.0
YOn = 1.0
Factored load Mo 1.0[648.2 + (1.0)42.4]
690.6 MNm
8.2.3 Stabilizing moments are calculated in the same way, compensating for the sign of the
vertical footing reaction.
Mo VI x 48.41 1243.2 MNm
ML VI x 48.41 162.8 MNm
Ms = 0
For partial resistance factors:

<Po 1.0
<PL 1.0
<ps 1.0
The factored resistance (1.0)1243.2 + (1.0)162.8 + (1.0)0.

1406 MNm
Mo/factored resistance = 0.49 < 1.0
Therefore the unit passes the overturning stability assessment.

~ Loads in the holding system
8.5.1 The holding system for this unit comprises the pinions and the jackhouse structure.
8.5.2 Maximum specified holding capacity of the pinions = 4.904 MN per pinion.
A factored ultimate capacity may also be used. The specification is 80% of yield. With
a factor of 0.85,
Factored yield capacity of pinions = (4.904/0.8)0.85 = 5.210 MN
The maximum pinion load for the D + L + E + Dn load cases is at 61.3, with the
maximum hull.
Maximum load from FE model: 4.06 MN

Adjustment for load equalization -0.08 MN
maximum pinion load 3.98 MN
Therefore, neither the factored yield capacity, nor the specified maximum capacity
detailed in the data pack are exceeded.
8.5.3 It is a straightforward process to analyze the members in the FE representation of the

jackhouse, according to 8.1. This has not been included in this document to avoid
excessive repetition.
~ Hull
8.6.1 Here it can be taken that all relevant Class Certificates apply. (i.e. none for a
hypothetical model!).
8.6.2 A detailed hull model including plate elements would be amenable to a detailed
strength analysis. Extreme loads could be determined from a simpler structural model,
and applied via portions of leg model, in reverse of the application of loads to a detailed
leg model.
The structure has now been assessed and overturning

stability considered. The unit meets both require-
ments, and so foundations should now be assessed.
Had the unit failed, a more detailed response

calculation would have been appropriate. If that were not
possible the unit would have been unsuitable.
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Assess foundation
ASSESSMENT OF FOUNDATION
Assess foundation, Sections 6.3 & 8.3/Figure 6.9
The second part of the assessment concerns the foundation stability. If the unit gets this far and
passes the foundation assessment, then the only remaining check is (if required) a limit on
allowable displacement.
Rather than produce a local route sign, the flowchart in figure 6.9 is referenced.
8.3 Foundation Assessment
Section 6.3 is referenced for this section. The flowchart in Figure 6.9 may be followed
at this stage.
~ Step 1 - preload check for leeward leg.
From the quasi-static analysis with inertialloadset, leeward leg vertical loads are as
follows:
VD 25.68 MN
VL 6.76MN
VE 15.54 MN
V Dn 1.06 MN
For the following partial load factors,

11 1.0
12 1.0
13 1.0
14 1.0
the factored load is
Qv (1.0)25.68 + (1.0)6.76 + (1.0)15.54 + (1.0)1.06

49.04MN
The vertical leg reaction during preloading is as follows.
max. load permissible through jacks 41.19 MN

buoyant leg weight 9.54MN
= 50.73 MN
The resistance factor for foundation capacity = 0.9

8.3.1 Hence
<pVp = 0.9 x 50.73 = 45.66 MN
Therefore Qv > <pVp and so the unit fails the preload assessment. Now assess the
foundation according to step 2a.
Had the unit passed this check then the analysis should proceed to windward leg sliding
(below).
windward leg sliding

1-----.~8.3.1.5
[not yet applicable here]
8.3.1.4 The bearing capacity check has already been engaged, and so there is no need to carry
out this check.
The bearing capacity check depends on the footing model. If a

pinned footing has been used then 8.3.2 is applicable. Ifa degree
of footing fixity has been used then 8.3.3 is applicable.
pinned Ifixity
foot /\
8.3.2 ~~ 8.3.3
§ Bearing Capacity Check - pinned foundation (leeward leg)
8.3.2.1 The vectors of horizontal and vertical leg reaction are required for each load case.
We have the following reactions [vertical (MN), horizontal (MN)]:

VHo = [25.680,0.115]
VH L [ 6.756,0.047] (max. hull, leeward leg)
VH E [ 15.545, 4.832]
VHOn [1.057,0.308]

"(1 1.0
"(2 1.0
"(3 1.0
"(4 1.0
The factored load vector is:

QVH = [49.038 MN, 5.302 MN]
The resistance term is the foundation capacity to withstand combined vertical and
horizontal loads, FvH , which is obtained in 6.3.3 for the particular soil types.
8.3.2.1
I
sand
6.3.3.1
ffi~
clay
6.3.3.2
other
6.3.3.3
F VH for footing in sand.
During installation the maximum bearing capacity is equal to the footing load.
However, here a penetration of 1.25m is specified and this will determine the bearing
capacity.
For this penetration there is no overburden pressure at spudcan base level i.e. Po' = 0, so
the capacity load envelope is described by:
FVH = 12A)"BNys"dy[1 - (HJVd*]m+l
Terms in this equation are evaluated as follows:

A = 154m2
)" .011 MN/m2
B 7.0m
L 7.0m
<p 38°
Nq e7rtan<fJtan2(45 + <p/2) = 48.93
Ny 2(N q + l)tan <p = 78.02
Sy 1.0 - O.4(B/L) = 0.6
dy 1.0
m 1.5
A range of values of (F H/F VH)* is substituted, and vertical capacities obtained

accordingly. The corresponding FH* can be related to the horizontal capacity by
FH* + 0.5)"(kp - ka)(h 1 + h2)As

where, tan2(45 - <p/2) = 0.238
llka = 4.204
0.0 (not fully embedded)
1.25m
2.125 m 2
Using the above relationships the following table of capacities is obtained:
(FH/FvH)* FVH FH* FH

(MN)
0.0 277.5 0.0 0.06
0.04 250.6 10.0 10.1
0.08 225.3 18.0 18.1
0.15 185.0 27.8 27.8
0.25 135.0 33.8 33.8
0.35 94.5 33.1 33.1
0.50 49.1 24.6 24.6
6.3.3.1 The above table represents the unfactored foundation load capacity vector. Along side
it has been marked the factored load capacity envelope, for a resistance factor <PVH = 0.9,
as shown in figure 4.
It can be seen that the factored load vector lies within the factored resistance vector, and
so the unit meets the bearing assessment criterion for sand. Note that the positions of
the still water and factored loads are unusual in this case, largely because this is a
hypothetical foundation analysis.
According to figure 6.9 ofthe PRACTICE the unit shall now be checked for windward
leg sliding.
Figure 4. Bearing Capacity Envelope and Loads
V (MN)
300
--- -
Unfactored Load Capacity
.- -- -- --I
/
Factored Load Capacity
........
200 ........................
........
100
Factored
Still Water Load
--- ---
Load
-10 o
-- 10 20 30
H(MN)
1 6 .3 .3 .2 > FVH for footing in clay.
For this penetration there is no overburden pressure at spudcan base level i.e. Po' = 0, so
the capacity load envelope is described by:
Terms in this equation are evaluated as follows:
A 154 m 2
Nc 5.14
Cu 0.047 MN/m 2
Sc 1 + (NqBlNcL) = 1.19
since N q = 1.0 for an undrained clay (<p = 0.0)
de 1.0 + O.4(D/B) = 1.0 since D = O.Om
From this there exists a direct relationship between vertical foundation capacity and
horizontal foundation capacity. The horizontal foundation capacity is obtained from:
FH FH* + As(c uo + CuI)
2
where As 2.125 m
Cuo 0.040 MN/m2
CuI 0.040 MN/m 2
Now apply the resistance factor G>vH = 0.9. The required vertical capacity is
0.9 V Lo = 49.038 MN, i.e.
V Lo = 54.49 MN
For this, there is no sensible solution ofH L , and it is concluded that the unit does not
have sufficient capacity to meet the factored loads for the leeward leg.
1 >
6 .3 .3 .3 F VH for footing in layered soils.
(Outside the scope of this document.)
pinned foot
~ Bearing Capacity Check - with foundation fixity
Factored loads for the case of a footing with moment fixity are treated in much the
same way as for the pinned foot, except that the moment footing load is part of the
vector QVHM. The load factors are applied to the magnitudes ofthe load vectors, when
expressed relative to the still water case.
The foundation capacity to withstand vertical, horizontal and moment loadings FVHM is
defined by the yield surface function encountered in the fixity calculations. To apply
the resistance factors to this, the points on the yield surface must be written as vectors
from the still water reaction 10adset, and then reduced in magnitude accordingly.
The factored load and resistance check is then
where rds defined by the equation in 6.3.4.1.
No results for an analysis with fixity are available, so numerical values are not
presented here.
leeward leg
V
+
From figure 6.9 the next step is to perform the sliding check on the windward 1eg(s).
When the unit fails on the leeward leg checks it is necessary to perform a structural
analysis including fixity at the footing, or to use a more detailed dynamic response
method. This is discussed later.
~tura1 analysis with

1 . fIxity 6.3.4
~ Sliding resistance of the windward leg
The most critical case for windward leg sliding is minimum hull, storm heading 118.3°,
where there is just one windward leg.
From the quasi-static analysis with inertialloadset, we have the following windward leg
reactions
horizontal HE 4.359 MN
Hon 0.318 MN
vertical Vo 25.680 MN
VL 3.362 MN
VE -13.389 MN
VOn -0.875 MN
The following are the partial load factors:

11 1.0
12 1.0
13 1.0
14 1.0
and so the following factored loads are obtained:
horizontal (1.0)[ 4.359 + (1.0)0.318]

4.677 MN in association with
vertical Qv (1.0)25.680 + (1.0)3.362 - (1.0)13.389
- (1.0)0.875
14.778 MN
The resistance term is a horizontal foundation capacity FH when the vertical load Qv is
acting. From figure 6.9 values ofF H are obtained from 6.3.3 for the various soil types.
I
sand
6.3.3.1
ffi
l. clay
6.3.3.2
other
6.3.3.3
1 >
6 .3 .3 . 1 F H for footing in sand.
A horizontal sliding capacity HL is given for a vertical load V L.

FH = FvHtan () + 'i'2y(kp - ka)(h l + h2)As
where parameters are defined for sand earlier, except for () = <p - 5° = 33° for a flat
plate-like footing.
6. 3.3.1 The FVH here is deduced to be the factored vertical load, QV, so the horizontal
resistance becomes: sliding
uc=horizontal
FH 14.778 tan 33° + 0.0579 load/(0.8*vertical
9.655 MN laod*tan(o-5))
The resistance factor for sand is <PFC = 0.8, so the factored load divided by the factored
resistance is:
4.677
- - - = 0.61 < 1.0
0.8x9.655
Therefore the unit meets the sliding criterion for sand. With a satisfactory footing
under the leeward leg, the foundation is acceptable.
FH for footing in clay.
A horizontal sliding capacity for a footing in clay is given by
FH = ACul + (c uo + cUl)As
where the terms are as defined for clay earlier. This expression is valid for a range of
vertical loads FYH such that
where FYH is the ultimate vertical bearing capacity in the presence of horizontal load.
For the assessment, the factored vertical load Qy must lie within this range. It is
therefore necessary to determine FyH .
The relevant expression for F YH is found in the penetrations calculation in 6.2.2,

allowing for backflow and displaced soil:
(6.2.2)
where, in addition to parameters assigned earlier,
Fo' o. (no back-flow)

V 19.9 m 3
so that
FYH 44.4 MN
and
YlF YH = 22.2 MN> QL = 14.8 MN
Therefore the expression for horizontal capacity is applicable.
FH = 6.33 MN
(6.2.2) With a resistance factor for clay of <PFC = 0.64, the factored load divided by the factored
resistance is:
4.677
- - - = 1.55 > 1.0
0.64x6.33
Therefore the unit does not meet the criterion for sliding in clay.
Structural analysis including fixity moments at the footing is now required.
FVH for footing in layered soils.
(Outside the scope of this document).
windward leg
W
+
The foundation assessment for pinned footing is
now complete. Depending on its outcome, the user
should either check displacements, or perform a
more detailed analysis.
Summary for this unit: (sand soil)

step 1 - preload FAIL)
step 2a- bearing (pinned) PASS)
sliding PASS
Action: go on to displacement check.
There are no requirements to look at displacement, so
UNIT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THIS SOIL TYPE.
Summary for this unit: (clay soil)

step 1 - preload FAIL)
step 2a- bearing (pinned) FAIL)
sliding FAIL
Action: determine fixity and repeat analysis, or
use results of more detailed dynamic analysis
Preliminary Issue, May 1994 Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Data Pack for Typical Jack-Up Number 2

Example ("Go-by") Calculations fora Typical Jackup Page 122
JACK-UP OPERATIONS
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
TYPICAL JACKUP NUMBER 2 - DATA SHEET
PRINCIPAL PARTICULARS
Dimensions
Length overall 66.660m

Beam overall 74.624m
Longitudinal leg centers 51.000m
Transverse leg centers 55.000m
Number oflegs 3, K-braced
Overall leg length 100.000m
Leg chord pitch centers 10.000m
Bay height 3.750m
Distance between guide CL's 15.000m
Weights
Hull
Hull lightship (inc. eqt) 4000t
Cantilever etc. 800t
Maximum variable 2000t
Maximum elevated hull weight 6800t
Survival C of G: LCG: 21.500m forward of AP (14.500m fwd of

center-line of aft legs)
TCG: 1.500m to starboard of center-line
Legs
One leg, excluding can 880t
Footing can 200t
Total weight of a single leg 1080t
TYPICAL JACKUP NUMBER 2 - DATA SHEET (CONT 1)
Elevating System
The elevating system is a four-high single rack system, thus providing 4 pinions per
chord or 12 pinions per leg.
Maximum holding capacity SOOt/pinion (this is O.S of the load at which

yielding was observed in a test)
Effective stiffness 200000 kNlm in the direction normal to the pinion
tooth and with respect to the
mounting at the neutral axis of the
comer post (from the same tests)
The pinion sets may be torque equalized in the 'still water' condition.
Each set of four pinions is supported within the comer post by shock pads top and
bottom with an effective stiffness of SOOOOkN/m each. Either top or bottom pad acts
alone on anyone chord.
Comer 'post' & pinion stack
Each have the following properties:
Axial area 0.150 m2

Second moment of area 1.000 m4 (all axes)
Torsional constant 1.000 m4
The centroid of each section is located at the nominal chord pitchline.
Nominal Clearances
The rack guide clearance 0.010 m in the plane of the rack (no restraint
normal to the rack plane)
Back plate guide clearance +1-0.010 m in the plane of the plate (no restraint
normal to the plane of the back plate)
The pinion/rack clearance 0.010 m in the vertical direction including
backlash in gears through to the
brake.
Available Preload
The maximum available preload that can be applied through the jacks is given below.
The values given account for contributions from the hull, equipment, variable and
preload water.
Bow leg 4000 tonnes

Stem legs 4200 tonnes each
TYPICAL JACKUP NUMBER 2 - DATA SHEET (CONT 2)
THE DESIGN STORM
Maximum still water depth 30.0 m including tide and surge

Tidal rise 3.5 m
Storm surge 1.5 m
(Water depth chart datum) 25.0 m
Maximum wave height 16.0 m

Period associated with max wave 13.0 secs
Significant wave height 8.6 m
Peak wave period 12.4 secs
Zero-up crossing period 9.5 secs
One hour mean wind 33.3 m/sec

One minute mean wind 39.0 m/sec (at 10.0 m ref. level)
Three second gust 45.6 m/sec
Surface current 2.0 m/sec

Current at the seabed 2.0 m/sec
Based on previous experience of a similar footing on a nearby location the penetration

of the spudcan tip is expected to be 1.25m below the seabed.
'"dm
>-;
~
:x~
:=:3
]000
1 ! 3>0
s· ~
~,.-,
8'" ~ :
...... 0
""+1---- Derrick l'uuwDr~ frGm
~
~
0
0-
......_Flill feced Sections ~'<
~ ~~I
8 ..--
~0
.. )12:._""'-11 J L------,
I~
~ ~ n
... ~
...
ca
;11 III '"
GO
'"
~
'<
\OE..
\O~
.j:::.
e:..
...... 0
::to
§
~
"'"
:s 0'
....
.,;,
>-;
BEAM ELEVATIOM ~
....,
:a-.o
e:..
.....
,1" II ~·I
!
bI~j~ lu~
ca
~
'"
'"
~~
-=0
~
""
'" ---
STERN ELEVATION
115011 Hot es;-

'UII dimtnsiDns in IIIt:res.
1:"I~lior dru.l~ na ....e: ~un O!\liSe::l! iDld.,- fDi ~"e purpose a' prD\o\dfrG t'ypi[~t c.ata f:J1"
TYPICAL JACK -UP Ng 2 ~
>0 '"d
PLAN VIEW oI.or h "':5Hpt:lj·... [iv~ GI1 .. 1)"~u by [ll"'t".c'ipgnt:;';1\
r.r
tt<o: ''';-1. h~ pr~ju1, "J.. .;Jc:"J~
GEtIERAL ARRANGEMENT ~ ~
In~.-~t·..,r5. t:CfI'P"-~: WI;' ~tlr1'1' U~jI.~c:;It'..,..1I' jar"j"H"Llt',.,,~. LI"I'I ~tfllil ;111-' r~ 11ft. "IUII,rt"a
i:i{JQ
jt:si~.u ••·II!'Ii:s.[~(~c1, ..... Iota-ted 0(' Q~"C(WiK is pur~ly co-inc;-doe:ntal. J.".'C'r~tdp qt, .,~ o..~
:';)'nI9~t ln, thgu drudr.'J5 o;:l'Iall r~;" 1o'HIIo 'th~l\ U( fr("ll.eroOlt;Q'\ a ....j Pr~I"'.'M.
JUIJUV 19U )RO. B' 2I! ;;;; .......
;J:>~
"'Otri
...., ><
g.~
s· s
..... "0
:::: .........
~ (1)
E IAt ~r-;
_0
lr
::<
~ ,,,~Lr' ~
I - .'": ;;. V>
V>
0I
....
~
s:::
~(l)
r::r
'<..
fl/:; ,,! R.. k dot_ils li,.i:.r ~~
;;;;
~0
1\0 •• ' 10 tho~. en .rg.1.I2
~ n
,...... 1/ ......
to> '< .........
~
I~
.........(")
I .
IDS:::
- -I:'I!
~-
/ IDa
. "..---- ,- .j:::.. .....
~ !': ~'~O-J~U-~
#~"
I / §
V>
/
,[; II,
::::' '
d' .
z'
I~ , \5101.,'
h 0-03\
~
~
Ql
....,
~
'/'\'1
r'
g
... ~o·
I'~."
//
~
F HBO
I rae. -Wor k Pointl'" Apprn
;. ; ;
iI , Col Gor r.h.rJ
e:.
......
I moeD
I ~
PLAN ON A-A .§
.~~).
=
'l "I
~
:.'<~~
~
~
'"' ,
'-~-V--=I@ '"" "
...
::::' DETAil 1 ~
"~-DDCI~--------.
"'4 '"',,",.
I
-~
'=N-~
-<---
m hles,-
I..\ ,-
AP .imra,ioflS i. n~lli!s_
\ ,-
HE'/ATION ON LEG [jim
0-,50
TVPICAl JACK-UP "22
Tt.~':'1! "".3";";1_
lise- ir C.7JI;laQ: "'to
Op'!;r;:rilSt'\~.
,,~ ..... been
~IVKi
~e .. ·lt.e-r;: ~L.L·I
by "~ni;i~Il;~ in
folll, tt.•
t0flP6r:lIi ..... I:;l.dr I:f 1\.ii ... ",~'" hc:"N.lr~ ..

~11JO~.
~he'
,)" pro.,.cil"$ t ... p·,,~t
''':0,.
j,
tlprc;
,\"'~.
pr';:Ijen.
:at. rill'
··J<Io;;~'U"
,i... iLiI~i7Y 10;; ... iUitl,
ElEVATION 8-8
LEG DETAILS
:g"'O
(1) ~
8.~
Qf1l1o;rs. re;li.~tr~. ,c.M.-n~eQ cr ocn~-w,~, h ~r4!!ly ::Jir)Lide"ul. J'~ll(l!Dj'i~ (Jr. <tIIld
'''F)'ri~t ;"l, ~~~~<; dr"".. ;n~" ~,"1l1 L r~ ... '" .. iI,. ~<!!It u< hIP\<lr:s.licn .,,~ ~l'{o::o..cr;:lI"I.
WURiBI1'I ~RG H' 2i?
;;< ..........
>~
>-em
>-j;><
g..Pl
S· 3
lack fromr l D~~.. ~ulde
"OlH I HIS BGI ~enll1llvpl
_. "0
~
Pl
~~
-
(\)
uni( II .. ~tla ,hett
_Q
fDr d, t~il.1 \
\ \ (/J
(/J
s::
0
I
\ \ ~~ Up ~er 6,.i dI cr'

~(\) '<..
~
g
::. Pi.'1iofl-f{- - s;::0
Pl n
- ~ ··Pir-in 1. '< e.
.~
\, 01 :!:: --Pi~iD"-fr' _n
I,OS::
I,0
-
1,0-
~a
-.
o
\ :y~'
\ O· -Pinion-\-.
~ ~
(/J
\ ~,'i\
II , , ..... \
'""
g 0'
/1
>-j
\\ ~ i r-
oJ
Pl
\\
Q.
-I~ ~ lo.".~r
~
fl g >-l
/ -.e.
~,
~:;;: =
~' :z Guidr Guide
t-..'..:'l ~
~
I
\:\ ~
I--------tl ~ ~~
n
'-<
GU IDE AHD PIMIO N ARRANGEMENT i=5
::-;-
.§
Gui4. ~&.lo." S ss SSS\~~ Guide
l Tr~n ..em leg SEacing = ~H.m~!,-_ _ _ __

o.~~~~_ JLo]1O
PLAN VIEW DETAll1 - TYPICAL
UPPER ANO LOWER
'lui. Jhi(n~$sp;lmm's: ,- He:f,'- GUIDE OETAIL
Oed Ilot. 2', 11 Ail thidness inti. de
StU"eads 10 'l1'''!'Ii
iliff.nm PLAH ON JACKHOUSE
l!~ Well! LI
Bottom Plett ~o 2) iot:om plate inclurr. TYPICAL JACK -UP N~ 2 >-
doubt. b~ltol1l The!:le dr'..i.• in." II:;\,,, 1::--. drrA,,;!OJ '-6 .• ·.'/' :01' t~ .. p.~. o· f'te",idinJ ti'p.. ul <jo:;'~iI t.".
u::.e in COIIJ.ar"·'\'1II! "rlJlyses '>I i1)-tj'lp.t''I[$ in tf1e s.lu:\ f,J.j::rCl P":J.jeoc:;. ·'~.4,:k·1..tJ
HULL AHD JACK FRAME LAYOUT
::g(\) >-e
-
3) All rlill',nmn' in miles 0.::;::'-01,; 01"1;3, c.~l'IpOl','l;OJe 'Sn.::ly '(J ., ..... e-Ur:l@.nt ~·rc·c.edlrr!c I, l,n'1' simi t M'i ~y to -I).; I:; 11;; fICI Pl
o::I"!!Sl~.
\ .... ."
I"il'')i;;,· ... ''''''. r."lTH\rP3:'lf' ')[h@rlol'~e i~ punLy ~t.lin.::ldel"·,[,.ili. o).j:ll~TI>r.,,, lIf.
i"J!I~ j,), :.,!,~1.' o.Jf'.!ooIing!. ::I~t I -~"'. It -.i!~ ~I-IcLI JI: tl.plor.tiCr'l ","Id 'fCldu<:1
dru
i-cl"l.
JARUA~Li~!8. H:i.h! !f)
s..<§
~.
>-~

SNAME Jack Up Site Assessment Recommended Practices PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNAME Jack Up Site Assessment Recommended Practices PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T echnical

This Bulletin contains two documents relating to the site-specific assessment of

The second document is T&R 5-5A and is referred to as a "Recommended Practice".

The Society of Naval Architects

Technical & Research Bulletin S-SA

This volume contains the following documents:

FIRST EDITION - MAY 1994

THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCIDTECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS

Reviewed and Approved

William P. Stewart, Chairman

William T. Bennett Peter G. Noble

The Working Group

Friede & Goldman W.T. Bennett (Chair)

© Copyright 1994 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Fax: (281) 877-6001

2 DATA TO BE ASSEMBLED FOR EACH SITE WCA TION

2.1 Rig Data 3

3.1 Mode of Operation 6

4.1 Loading Cases 7

GUIDELINE FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSlVIENT

1.2 Reference Document

1.2.1 The accompanying document entitled "RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR SITE

1.3 Applicability and limitations

1.4 Typical Approach to Site Assessment

2 DATA TO BE ASSEMBlED FOR EACH SUE WCA nON

2.1 Rig Data

Pertinent drawings and specifications,

Details of any relevant modifications.

2.1.2 When modelling the jack-up structure, it is necessary to consider the

2.2 Site Data

2.3 Environmental Data

2.4 Geotechnical Data

3.1 Mode of Opemtion

3.3 Leg Length Resen'e

4.1 Loading Cases

a) Dead loads, plus

b) Applicable live loads, plus

a) Displacement dependent loads, plus

4.2 Wave and Current Forces

4.3 Wind Forces

4.4 Reaction Point and Foundation Fixity

4.5 Stonn Approach Angle

4.6 Centre of Gmvity

4.7 Displacement Dependent Loads

4.8 Dynamic Effects

b) The magnitude of this vibration is primarily influenced by the amount of wave

4.9 Other Loads

Ice loading, and

Blast over-pressure due to an explosion on an adjacent structure.

It is seldom necessary to consider such loads in combination with the maximum

The key resistance checks include:

Foundations and preload, and

5.2 Overturning Stability

5.3 Foundation and Preload

5.4 Structural Integrity

Any strength limitations with respect to maximum or minimum penetrations and/or

5.5 Adjacent Structures

FIRST EDITION - MAY 1994

Rev Issue Date Details

Mr. Robert D. Bowie

FAX: (281) 877-6001

© Copyright 2002 by The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers