TECHNICAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE

GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS OF JACK-UPS

0009/ND

These Guidelines have been updated as part of the first stage of the harmonisation between the
GL Noble Denton and DNV heritage marine services requirements.
Refer also to DNVGL-SE-0080 Noble Denton marine services – Marine Warranty Survey
for further details.
All references to GL Noble Denton apply to the legal entity trading under the DNV GL or GL Noble Denton
name which is contracted to carry out the scope of work and issues a Certificate of Approval, or provides a
marine related advisory or assurance service.

Once downloaded this document becomes UNCONTROLLED.

Please check the website below for the current version.

8 Jul 16 10 MJRH Technical Standards Committee

8 Feb 16 9 MJRH Technical Standards Committee
14 Dec 15 8 MJRH Technical Standards Committee
22 Jun 13 7 MJRH Technical Policy Board
6 Dec 10 6 MJRH Technical Policy Board
31 Mar 10 5 MJRH Technical Policy Board
16 Dec 08 4 MJRH Technical Policy Board
7 Dec 07 3 MJRH Technical Policy Board
25 Oct 06 2 MJRH Technical Policy Board
02 Aug 06 1 MJRH Technical Policy Board
Date Revision Prepared by Authorised by
http://www.dnvgl.com/
 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

PREFACE

This document has been drawn with care to address what are considered to be the primary issues in relation to the
contents based on the experience of the GL Noble Denton Group of Companies (“the Group”). This should not,
however, be taken to mean that this document deals comprehensively with all of the issues which will need to be
addressed or even, where a particular matter is addressed, that this document sets out a definitive view for all
situations. In using this document, it should be treated as giving guidelines for sound and prudent practice, but
guidelines must be reviewed in each particular case by the responsible organisation in each project to ensure that
the particular circumstances of that project are addressed in a way which is adequate and appropriate to ensure that
the overall guidance given is sound and comprehensive.
Reasonable precaution has been taken in the preparation of this document to seek to ensure that the content is
correct and error free. However, no company in the Group
 shall be liable for any loss or damage incurred resulting from the use of the information contained herein or
 shall voluntarily assume a responsibility in tort to any party or
 shall owe a duty of care to any party other than to its contracting customer entity (subject always to the terms
of contract between such Group company and subcontracting customer entity).

This document must be read in its entirety and is subject to any assumptions and qualifications expressed therein as
well as in any other relevant communications by the Group in connection with it. Elements of this document contain
detailed technical data which is intended for analysis only by persons possessing requisite expertise in its subject
matter.

© 2016 Noble Denton Group Limited. The content of this document is the copyright of Noble Denton Group Limited.
All rights reserved. Any reproduction in other material must have written permission. Extracts may be reproduced
provided that their origin is clearly referenced.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 2 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 SUMMARY 4
1.1 Content and Scope 4
1.2 The Approval Process 4
1.3 Assessment for Elevated Operations 4
1.4 Data to be Submitted 4
2 INTRODUCTION 5
3 DEFINITIONS 7
4 THE APPROVAL PROCESS 9
4.1 General 9
4.2 GL Noble Denton Approval 9
4.3 Certificate of Approval 9
4.4 Scope of Work Leading to a Location Approval 9
5 OPERATING CONDITION 12
5.1 Reference Document and Deviations Therefrom 12
5.2 Environmental Return Period for Tropical Revolving Storm Areas (ISO Clause 5.5.4) 12
5.3 Geophysical and geotechnical data (ISO Clauses 6.5 and A.6.5) 12
5.4 Marine Growth (ISO Clauses 11.3.4 and A.7.3.2.5) 12
5.5 Leg Inclination (ISO Clauses 8.3.6, 10.5.4 and A.10.5.4) 12
5.6 Hull Sagging (ISO Clauses 8.8.3 and A.8.8.3) 13
5.7 Environmental Load Factor (ISO Clause 5.5.4 and Annex B) 13
5.8 Overturning Safety Factor (ISO Clause 13.8 and Annex B) 13
5.9 Bearing Capacity and Resistance to Sliding (ISO Clauses 9.3.6, A9.3.6 and Annex B) 13
5.10 Leg and Holding System Strength (ISO Clauses 12 and/ A.12 and Annex F) 14
6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 15
6.1 Assessment of Rig Survivability from Punch-Through 15
6.2 Earthquake Areas 15
6.3 Ice Areas 15
6.4 Fatigue 15
6.5 Good Practice Recommendations for Preloading at Difficult Locations 15
6.6 Good Practice Recommendations For Recovering from Punch-Through 15
REFERENCES 16
APPENDIX A - DATA TO BE SUBMITTED 17
APPENDIX B - OPERATIONS MANUAL 19
APPENDIX C - GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRELOADING AT "DIFFICULT"
LOCATIONS 20
APPENDIX D - GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-
THROUGH, ETC. 23

0009/ND REV 10 Page 3 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

1 SUMMARY
1.1 CONTENT AND SCOPE
1.1.1 These guidelines will be used by GL Noble Denton for the assessment of self-elevating platforms in the
elevated condition for the purposes of Marine Warranty Approval. They address:
 General feasibility studies, including optional checks for punch-through resistance and
fatigue; such studies may result in a Statement of Acceptability.
 Assessment for specific locations; such studies may result in a Certificate of Approval.
Acceptable alternative criteria can be used when requested by the client e.g. for the purposes of
meeting local regulatory requirements.
1.1.2 This document is intended to apply to self-elevating units of all types.
1.1.3 Where a unit is not classed for elevated operations, additional requirements apply.
1.1.4 It should be noted that this document cannot cover every case for all types of jack-up. The reader
should satisfy himself that the guidelines used are fit for purpose for the situation under consideration.
1.1.5 These Guidelines are not intended to exclude alternative methods, new technology and new
equipment, provided an equivalent level of safety can be demonstrated.
1.2 THE APPROVAL PROCESS
1.2.1 A description of the Approval Process is included, for projects where GL Noble Denton is acting as a
Warranty Surveyor. The extent and limitations of the approval given are discussed.
1.3 ASSESSMENT FOR ELEVATED OPERATIONS
1.3.1 Guidelines are presented for the assessment of elevated operations. Subject to the specific variations
and additions set forth herein this document refers to ISO 19905-1 for the data requirements,
calculation methodology and acceptance criteria to be applied.
1.4 DATA TO BE SUBMITTED
1.4.1 The data to be submitted is summarised in APPENDIX A . -

0009/ND REV 10 Page 4 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 This document provides guidelines for the site specific assessment of self-elevating platforms (jack-
ups). It refers to engineering studies that are complementary to inspection of the unit and the
acquisition of applicable site data. The requirements for seabed and geotechnical data are described
in 0016/ND ‘Seabed and Sub-Seabed Data Required for Approvals of Mobile Offshore Units (MOU)’,
Ref. [1]. The towage and transportation of jack-ups is addressed in the GL Noble Denton Guideline
‘Guidelines for Marine Transportations’ 0030/ND, Ref. [2].
2.2 Where approval by GL Noble Denton is required, sufficient up-to-date rig-specific information
together with accurate operating or storm survival configuration details (loading condition, air gap, etc.)
should be submitted by the client in order to allow calculations to be undertaken to demonstrate that
the unit meets the criteria.
2.3 These guidelines are intended to cover the structural design and site specific assessment of the unit.
However, the sea bed conditions and the structural design or assessment of the unit are closely inter-
related, so references to sea bed conditions are made in this document. Any approval for operations
indicated by compliance with these guidelines is subject to the sea bed conditions, and the normal
marine and operational recommendations of GL Noble Denton offices.
2.4 Revision History
2.4.1 Revision 1 of these guidelines dated 02 August 2006 superseded those contained in Revision 0 of this
document dated 12 December 1986. The principal changes and revisions were:
 Deletion of sections referencing towage and transportation which were moved to 0030/ND..
 Reference to SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A as the basis for the assessment of elevated
operations, subject to the deviations as set out herein.

2.4.2 Revision 2 superseded the guidelines contained in Revision 1 of this document dated 02 August 2006.
The principal revisions are the inclusion of deviations to the following additional sections of SNAME
T&R Bulletin 5-5A:
 3.9 Marine Growth;
 5.4 Leg Inclination;
 5.7.1/C5.7.1 Hull sag.

2.4.3 Revision 3 superseded Revision 2. The principal change was a re-wording of Section 5.2.1. The
pagination was improved.
2.4.4 Revision 4 superseded Revision 3 of this document. The principal change was reformatting and
removing references to NDI (Noble Denton International).
2.4.5 Revision 5 superseded Revision 4 of this document. The principal change was rebranding as GL
Noble Denton.
2.4.6 Revision 6 superseded Revision 5. The principal change was updating to accommodate the changes
made in Revision 3 of SNAME T&R Bulletin 5-5A, dated January 2008, but issued in July 2009.
Section 5.8.2 was clarified. Appendices C and D were added to incorporate Good Practice
Recommendations in relation to Preloading and Punch-through recovery.
2.4.7 Revision 7 superseded Revision 6 of this document. The principal changes were:
 Replacement of references to SNAME T&RB 5-5A, Ref. [2] with references to
ISO 19905-1:2012 Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Site-specific assessment of mobile
offshore units -- Part 1: Jack-ups, Ref. [5].
 Minor updates ro the information required in Appendix A
 Updates to Appendix C: Good Practice Recommendations in relation to Preloading at difficult
locations.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 5 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

2.4.8 Revision 8 superseded Revision 7 of this document. The principal changes, marked with a vertical line
in the right hand margin, were:
 Clarification of scope of independent analyses in Section 4.4
8
 Changes in the approach for sliding in Section 5.9
 Addition of Ref [6] ISO 19901-2:2004 “Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Part 2: seismic
design procedures and criteria” in Section 6.2.1.

2.5 Revision 9 superseded Revision 8 of this document. The only change, marked with a vertical line in
the right hand margin, is: 9
 Reference to 19901-5 changed to 19905-1 in Section 6.2.1.
2.6 This Revision 10 supersedes Revision 9 of this document. The only changes, marked with a vertical
line in the right hand margin, are: 10
 Sections 1) and 9) of Appendix C (GPR for preloading) have been updated.

2.7 These guidelines are intended to lead to an approval by GL Noble Denton. Such approval does not
imply that approval would be given by designers, regulatory bodies, harbour authorities and/or any
other party.
2.8 All GL Noble Denton Guidelines can be downloaded from
https://www.dnvgl.com/rules-standards/noble-denton-maa-rules-and-guidelines.html

2.9 Please contact the Technical Standards Committee Secretary at TSC@dnvgl.com with any queries or
feedback.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 6 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

3 DEFINITIONS
3.1 Referenced definitions are underlined.
Term or Acronym Definition
API American Petroleum Institute
ASD Allowable Stress Design (effectively the same as WSD)
Assured The Assured is the person who has been insured by some insurance
company, or underwriter, against losses or perils mentioned in the policy
of insurance.
Assessment The metocean conditions applicable to the site specific assessment.
environmental condition Either the 50-year individual extremes or the 100 year joint probability
values. Directionality and seasonality may be used where applicable.
Assessment significant Either the 50-year individual extreme significant wave height, or the 100
wave height year joint probability significant wave height for the season of the
particular operation.
Certificate of Approval A formal document issued by GL Noble Denton stating that, in its
judgement and opinion, all reasonable checks, preparations and
precautions have been taken to keep risks within acceptable limits, and
an operation may proceed.
Classification A system of ensuring floating vessels are built and maintained in
accordance with the Rules of a particular Classification Society. Although
not an absolute legal requirement the advantages (especially as regards
insurance) mean that almost all vessels are maintained in Class.
GL Noble Denton The legal entity trading under the DNV GL or GL Noble Denton name
which is contracted to carry out the scope of work and issues a Certificate 8
of Approval, or provides a marine related advisory or assurance service.
Independent leg jack- A jack-up where the legs may be raised or lowered independently of each
up other.
Insurance Warranty A clause in the insurance policy for a particular venture, requiring the
approval of a marine operation by a specified independent survey house.
ISO International Standards Organisation
Jack-up A self-elevating MODU, MOU or similar, equipped with legs and jacking
systems capable of lifting the hull clear of the water.
Marine Warranty Has no executive authority on the unit and attends to monitor the manner
Surveyor in which the move, jacking and preloading operations are performed.
Where necessary he may submit recommendations to the unit's owner or
senior crew in order that the unit is always operated in a safe and proper
manner, in accordance with the operating manual except where
alternative recommendations are made in the Certificate of Approval
and/or approved rig move procedures.
Mat-supported jack-up A jack-up which is supported in the operating mode on a mat structure,
into which the legs are connected and which therefore may not be raised
or lowered independently of each other.
MODU See MOU
MOU Mobile Offshore Unit. For the purposes of this document, the term may
include Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs), and non-drilling mobile
units such as accommodation, construction, lifting or production units
including those used in the offshore renewables sector.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 7 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

Term or Acronym Definition

RIG General reference term often used to describe a jack-up (see MOU) e.g.
8
‘Rig move procedures’
WSD Working Stress Design (effectively the same as ASD)
VIV Vortex Induced Vibration

0009/ND REV 10 Page 8 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

4 THE APPROVAL PROCESS

4.1 GENERAL
4.1.1 GL Noble Denton may act as a Warranty Surveyor, giving Approval to a particular operation, or as a
Consultant, providing advice, recommendations, calculations and/or designs as part of the Scope of
Work. These functions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
4.2 GL NOBLE DENTON APPROVAL
4.2.1 GL Noble Denton means any company within the GL Noble Denton Group including any associated
company which carries out the scope of work and issues a Certificate of Approval.
4.2.2 GL Noble Denton approval may be sought where an operation is the subject of an Insurance Warranty,
or where an independent third party review is required.
4.2.3 An Insurance Warranty is a clause in the insurance policy for a particular venture, requiring the
approval of a marine operation by a specified independent survey house. The requirement is normally
satisfied by the issue of a Certificate of Approval. Responsibility for interpreting the terms of the
Warranty so that an appropriate Scope of Work can be defined rests with the Assured.
4.3 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
4.3.1 The deliverable of the approval process will generally be a Certificate of Approval.
4.3.2 The Location Certificate of Approval is the formal document issued by GL Noble Denton when, in its
judgement and opinion, all significant location-specific hazards for the unit have been identified,
however earthquake assessment will not be undertaken unless in an area of high seismic activity (see
Section 6.2) or requested by the client. The unit is approved to operate at the location subject to
compliance with the recommendations in the Certificate.
4.3.3 A location approval Certificate will normally be issued by the approving office well in advance of the
move to the location.
4.4 SCOPE OF WORK LEADING TO A LOCATION APPROVAL
4.4.1 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
4.4.1.1 In order to issue a Certificate of Approval, GL Noble Denton will normally undertake an independent
site specific assessment considering, as applicable, the following topics:
 Site-specific environmental data
 Site-specific geotechnical data
 Seabed surface topography and features
 Previous jack-up installations
 Adjacent structures
 Jack-up configuration:
o Air gap and reserve of leg 8
o Loading condition
 Rig capability:
o Overturning Stability
o Preload/Predrive capacity
o Foundation capacity (bearing capacity/sliding)
o Leg strength (chords and braces)
o Holding system strength
o Susceptibility of column-leg units to global VIV response
 If required, the effects of earthquakes.
 If required, a fatigue assessment (see Section 6.4)

0009/ND REV 10 Page 9 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

4.4.1.2 An independent site-specific assessment may not be required when one of the following alternative
approaches shows acceptability. Comparison of the key parameters for the proposed operation:
a. against operating curves for the unit and considered acceptable by GL Noble Denton,
b. against limiting criteria given in the approved operations manual where these are considered
acceptable by GL Noble Denton,
c. against known cases that are considered acceptable by GL Noble Denton.
Such comparisons between previously computed capabilities and the requirements of the proposed 8
location should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced engineer. As a minimum the
referenced capabilities for metocean data, weight and CoG, leg length below hull, foundation fixity, and
assessment code should be similar or more onerous.
If a check by any of these methods is not available, or such a check indicates a marginal case, or if in
any doubt, an independent assessment is required.
4.4.1.3 A detailed list of information required for site specific assessment and warranty approval is provided in
APPENDIX A . -

4.4.1.4 The assessment may be carried out for all-year and/or seasonal and/or directional metocean
conditions. If necessary and feasible, consideration can be given to weight and/or centre of gravity
control in order to achieve acceptability. Any deviations from the standard operating procedures shall
be documented and communicated to the rig crew (see ISO 19905-1:2012 clause 5.4.1, Ref. [5]).
4.4.1.5 As per ISO 19905-1, 12.2.1, it is assumed that class requirements cover the design, construction, and
periodic survey of the jack-up and address issues, such as material properties, fabrication tolerances,
welding, construction details and parts of the jack-up other than the legs (e.g. jackhouse and hull
structure) which are not normally addressed in a site-specific assessment.
NOTE: Whilst a unit may be in class and be within the classed limits for a location, such compliance
may not be sufficient for the structural aspects to be approved by GL Noble Denton (due to differences
in methodology, assumptions, etc.). In any event, it is necessary that the site-specific foundation
conditions are evaluated.
4.4.1.6 Fatigue damage is excluded from any GL Noble Denton approval, unless either
 specific instructions are received from the client to include it in the scope of work, in which case
the scope will be agreed on a case-by-case basis, or
 the unit will not be classed by an IACS member body for elevated operations during the planned
period on location. In this case the objective is to demonstrate that there is adequate fatigue life
for the planned period on location.
NOTE: Fatigue life analysis requires a good knowledge of the operating history. In the absence of
such records, conservative engineering judgement must be applied.
4.4.2 STATEMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY
4.4.2.1 In cases where GL Noble Denton is requested to study the general feasibility of a unit a Statement of
Acceptability would be issued. The scope would typically encompass one or more of the following
topics:
 Rig capability whilst elevated [based on pinned foundation restraints or assumed soil(s)
condition(s), specified or generic area metocean conditons, water depth(s) etc.]. These
assumptions may be assessed to the criteria set out herein and/or other criteria such as class
requirements, ISO 19905-1, etc.
NOTE: Whilst a unit may be shown to comply with class requirements, such compliance may
not be sufficient for the unit to be approved by GL Noble Denton.
 Limitations for going on and off location.
 Fatigue.
 Accidental scenarios such as punch-through, vessel impact, the effects of earthquakes, etc.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 10 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

4.4.2.2 The following topics are addressed in the GL Noble Denton ‘Guidelines for Marine Transportations’
0030/ND, Ref. [2], and can also be included in a Statement of Acceptability:
 Stability afloat.
 Leg strength afloat.
 Dry transportation feasibility.
 Towing equipment and recommendations.

4.4.2.3 A Statement of Acceptability is an indication of rig capability. Each specific location will be assessed to
GL Noble Denton requirements using site specific data before a Certificate of Approval can be issued.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 11 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

5 OPERATING CONDITION
5.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENT AND DEVIATIONS THEREFROM
5.1.1 The calculations to assess the elevated operational suitability of a jack-up shall be carried out in
accordance with the current revision of ISO 19905-1:2012, Ref. [5].
5.1.2 The following specific deviations from the requirements of ISO 19905-1:2012 are acceptable for the
purposes of Warranty Approval by GL Noble Denton (but note that they may not be acceptable to the 8
local regulator, and therefore should not be used where the Site Specific Assessment is intended to
satisfy more onerous regulatory requirements).
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RETURN PERIOD FOR TROPICAL REVOLVING STORM AREAS (ISO
CLAUSE 5.5.4)
5.2.1 If the unit is to operate under conditions in which it will be unmanned (S2) or de-manned (S3) and the
consequence category is C2 or C3 then the unmanned case shall be evaluated at an agreed lower
return period. Typically the 10-year independent extremes (or greater), may be used if ALL of the
following conditions apply (these are generally in line with the requirements of ISO 19905-1):
a. The unit is operating in a tropical revolving storm area.
b. A proven storm warning system is in operation which gives an expected minimum of 3 days'
notice of tropical revolving storms which may pass within 200 nautical miles of the location.
c. Support systems are in existence to evacuate all personnel prior to arrival of the storm, bearing
in mind the requirements of other platforms affected.
d. All personnel are evacuated prior to the arrival of the storm, having rendered the well safe and
placed the rig in storm survival mode.
e. Such evacuation procedures are contained in the operations manual, and are communicated to
all personnel aboard.
f. Where the unit is the subject of an approval by GL Noble Denton for insurance purposes, the
limitations of the unit are disclosed to underwriters and operators.

5.2.2 Notwithstanding the above:

a. The air gap (Hull Elevation in ISO) shall equal or exceed the value required for 50 year return
period conditions.
b. The unit shall be capable of sustaining, to ISO limits as modified by this Guideline, non-tropical
revolving storms with a 50-year return period and tropical revolving storms that may arise too
rapidly for evacuation to be take place (in the Gulf of Mexico, these would be termed ‘sudden
hurricanes’).

5.3 GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA (ISO CLAUSES 6.5 AND A.6.5)
5.3.1 In areas that are known to be subject to unexploded ordinance (UXO), a magnetometer survey should
be carried out, and the necessary measures taken to ensure that any UXO detected does not present
a hazard to the jack-up.
5.4 MARINE GROWTH (ISO Clauses 11.3.4 and A.7.3.2.5)
5.4.1 For short term operations, marine growth may be ignored unless required by the client or known to pre-
exist (the ISO default value is 12.5mm on radius). For the avoidance of doubt, the leg should
nevertheless be considered rough below MWL + 2.0m.
5.5 LEG INCLINATION (ISO Clauses 8.3.6, 10.5.4 and A.10.5.4)
5.5.1 The effects of leg inclination may be ignored, unless there are specific reasons for it to exist (the ISO
default value is 0.5% of leg length, and it is normally taken into account by increasing the lower guide
moment of each leg by the leg inclination offset multiplied by the factored footing reaction of that leg).

0009/ND REV 10 Page 12 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

5.6 HULL SAGGING (ISO Clauses 8.8.3 and A.8.8.3)

5.6.1 The effects of hull sagging may be ignored, unless there are specific reasons for it to be included.
(The ISO default value from 8.8.3 is 25% of the theoretical initial maximum plus 100% of the sag due
to the change in the operational condition). Given normal guide clearances and operating procedures
we consider that the hull sag moments carried by the legs will normally be negligible.
5.6.2 However some jack-up construction vessels with the legs very far apart can have very high sagging
loads.
5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL LOAD FACTOR (ISO Clause 5.5.4 and Annex B)
5.7.1 Unless otherwise specified by the client, the environmental load factor used with 50-year independent
met-ocean extremes may be reduced to 1.0 (from the ISO value of 1.15). The environmental load
factor used with 100-year joint-probability met-ocean extremes may be reduced to 1.1 (from the ISO
value of 1.25). This is the historic approach taken by Noble Denton. It is relevant to note that:
a. There have been no recorded instances of structural overload to properly sited jack-ups except
for evacuated jack-ups sited in TRS (Tropical Revolving Storm) areas where the operating
philosophy accepted failure in the de-manned condition.
b. The bearing capacity requirements of Section 5.9 are at least as onerous as those of other
approaches that include a load factor.
5.8 OVERTURNING SAFETY FACTOR (ISO Clause 13.8 and Annex B)
5.8.1 For independent leg units, overturning safety factor is to be computed as:
Factored Stabilising moment
Overturning moment
The resistance factor by which the righting moment is divided shall be at least 1.1 (corresponding to a
minimum factor of safety of 1.1). The ISO requirement is 1.05, but this is used with the standard load
factors. The overturning moment shall accounts for the environmental load factor in Section 5.7.1.
5.8.2 For mat supported units the reaction point shall be assumed to be at the underside of the mat bottom
plating.
5.8.3 For mat supported units, the positive downward gravity loading on the mat shall be sufficient to
withstand the overturning moment for the 50-year loading. The loss of positive bearing pressure can
be accepted providing that resulting scenario can be sustained by both the foundation and the mat; the
bearing pressure should be considered in comparison to the vertical pressure acting on the seabed
adjacent to the mat, i.e. the net bearing pressure.
5.9 BEARING CAPACITY AND RESISTANCE TO SLIDING (ISO Clauses 9.3.6, A9.3.6 and
Annex B)
5.9.1 The combinations of vertical and horizontal load shall be checked against a bearing capacity envelope
targeting an overall safety factor on the bearing capacity checks of no less than 1.5 based on the
unfactored ISO V-H bearing capacity vector check. This is to guard against ‘abnormal events’ i.e.
environmental loads with a return period typically in the order of 1,000 to 10,000 years.
8
5.9.2 Should the overall factor of safety of 1.5 not be achieved, a settlement check can be undertaken. The
rig may be acceptable when the load-penetration curve indicates significant additional capacity for
acceptable levels of additional settlement (vertical foundation movement in the downward direction).
Settlement exceeding the operations manual limits may be acceptable provided that:
1. the structure can withstand the storm loading together with the effects of the settlement and/or
inclination,
2. the lateral deflections will not result in contact with adjacent structures and/or impairment of the
well and
3. the unit is expected to be jackable afterwards.
NOTE: The above implicitly checks that the preload is adequate.
Uncertainties with respect to the weight of backfill that may occur should be appropriately incorporated
in the site assessment and bearing capacity and sliding checks.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 13 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

5.9.3 The combinations of vertical and horizontal load shall also be checked for sliding against the more
onerous of the unfactored bearing capacity and sliding envelopes. Sliding over-utilisations may be
acceptable if justified by appropriate engineering analysis.
5.9.4 Mat supported units shall be demonstrated to have a factor of safety against sliding of not less than 1.5
for the 50-year storm condition. The effects of wave-induced seabed pressures shall be included in
the foundation capacity assessment as these can mobilise a proportion of the soil shear strength,
reducing the strength available to resist the loading applied by the mat to the soil. The 8
bearing/overturning capacity shall also be checked. Where these checks indicate that the unit may
move then limits for de-manning shall be established and the requirements of Sections 5.2.1.1 b. - f.
and 5.2.2 a. shall be followed.
5.10 LEG AND HOLDING SYSTEM STRENGTH (ISO Clauses 12 and/ A.12 and Annex F)
5.10.1 In the absence of more stringent requirements from the client, the leg and holding system shall be
checked as follows:
Stress levels computed for the assessment storm loadings shall not exceed the yield stress of the
material, accounting for buckling where appropriate e.g. by using the AISC ASD formulations, Ref [4],
but with all safety factors removed. Alternatively, the ISO LRFD methods may be considered using the
resistance factors stipulated by ISO.
NOTE: The intent is to prevent damage or deformation severe enough to prevent jacking the unit into
the water and towage to a safe location.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 14 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

6 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 ASSESSMENT OF RIG SURVIVABILITY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH
6.1.1 When it is desired to evaluate the ability of a unit to sustain a punch-through without damage at a
specific location, the legs of independent leg, three-legged units shall be shown not to be loaded
beyond the yield stress of the material, accounting for buckling where appropriate, under the following
conditions:-
a. The rig is carrying the maximum allowable variable load for jacking operations;
b. Maximum intended preload water for the variable load in (a) above is on board – where
applicable leg-by-leg preloading may be taken into account;
c. Leg length below the hull for this calculation shall be the sum of :-
 Maximum water depth including tidal rise, plus
 Maximum predicted final penetration, plus
 any proposed air gap (or a reduction due to planned draught).
d. A sudden increased penetration of any one leg has occurred such that the hull takes an
inclination to the horizontal. A range of penetrations shall be considered accounting for the
predicted load-penetration response.
e. Hull buoyancy may be taken into account in the calculation.
NOTE: It is normally acceptable to ignore dynamic effects.
6.1.2 The analysis shall consider two cases:
1. where the distance between the legs at the seabed remains constant (all three legs carry
approximately equal shear and moment) and
2. where the punch-through leg penetrates vertically such that the leg separation increases and
the other two legs carry increased shear and moment.

6.1.3 The results from the above may be interpreted in light of site specific practical considerations which
may suggest that realistic results lie between the bounds analysed.
6.2 EARTHQUAKE AREAS
6.2.1 Operations in areas subject to high seismic activity (e.g. ISO 19901-2, Ref [6], Seismic Zone 4) and
sites with potential for cyclic mobility (e.g. liquefaction) need special consideration, and a study of 9
earthquake loadings shall be carried out where appropriate, see e.g. ISO 19905-1 (Ref. [5]).
6.3 ICE AREAS
6.3.1 Operations in areas affected by fast- or sea-ice are not covered by this document, and would require
special consideration (see ISO 19906, Ref. [7]).
6.3.2 The effects of ice accretion should be taken into account in the loadings on the structure.
6.4 FATIGUE
6.4.1 The effects of fatigue on structural areas subject to continuous cyclic loading, such as the leg to
spudcan or leg to mat connection, shall be considered when required by Section 4.4.1.6.
6.4.2 Where such a unit is intended to operate for a long period in water depths such that the same leg
sections are within or near the guides, the effects of fatigue on the legs near the guides and splash
zone shall also be considered.
6.5 GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRELOADING AT DIFFICULT LOCATIONS
Guidance is given in APPENDIX C . -

6.6 GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOVERING FROM PUNCH-THROUGH

Guidance is given in APPENDIX D . -

0009/ND REV 10 Page 15 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

REFERENCES

[1] GL Noble Denton 0016/ND - Seabed and sub-seabed data required for approvals of Mobile Offshore Units
(MOU)
[2] GL Noble Denton 0030/ND - Guidelines for Marine Transportations
[3] SNAME Technical and Research Bulletin 5-5A, latest revision, “Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up
Units”.
[4] AISC Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design, July 1, 1989, with Supplement 1
[5] ISO 19905-1:2012 Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Site-specific assessment of mobile offshore units -
- Part 1: Jack-ups
[6] ISO 19901-2:2004 Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Specific requirements for offshore structures -- Part
2: seismic design procedures and criteria
[7] ISO 19906:2010 Petroleum and natural gas industries -- Arctic offshore structures
[8] DNVGL-SE-0080 - Noble Denton marine services – Marine Warranty Survey

All GL Noble Denton Guidelines can be downloaded from:

https://www.dnvgl.com/rules-standards/noble-denton-maa-rules-and-guidelines.html

0009/ND REV 10 Page 16 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

APPENDIX A - DATA TO BE SUBMITTED

A.1. DRAWINGS AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION

For any approval, the following rig-specific information should be submitted to GL Noble Denton for
the current “as-built” status of the rig i.e. accounting for all modifications to date:
A.1.1 Designers’ general specifications for unit
A.1.2 Current Operations Manual (see APPENDIX B ) if available. If not available, details of fixed and
-

moveable hull light weights, leg and footing weights, variable load to be considered and individual and
combined CoG’s. These details to include weights and centres of gravity for:
 Hull
 Fixed Load (machinery and outfitting)
 Moveable Load (Cantilever, substructure, derrick and draw-works, crane lifting loads)
 Legs
 Spudcans and spudcan water (or mat and ballast as appropriate)
 Maximum allowable variable load for elevating, lowering, operating, survival, including the
associated drilling loads
 Maximum preload that can be applied to each leg through the elevating system. Where
applicable values for regular and leg-by-leg preloading should be provided.

A.1.3 General arrangement plans and elevations showing the hull, jackhouses, accommodation, etc., and
deck mounted equipment.
A.14 Leg structural drawings.
A.1.5 Spudcan/pad or mat arrangements and structure.
A.1.6 Details of significant leg and/or hull appurtenances e.g., raw water structures and their guides.
A.1.7 Jackhouse or jack frame structure, showing connection into hull.
A.1.8 Upper and lower guide structural drawings.
A.1.9 Jacking and holding system arrangements and specifications and principles of operation, including:
 Stiffness of jacks and, where fitted, holding system,
 Jack capacities for elevating, lowering, preloading, and the basis on which these are quoted,
 Jack system ultimate capacity and where applicable jack slip load,
 Holding system ultimate capacity.

A.1.10 Hull drawings showing scantlings of the decks, bulkheads and framing.
A.1.11 If not described in the Operations Manual (see APPENDIX B ), or this is not available, Tank
-

arrangements including capacities and positions or total preload and CoG, associated variable load &
CoG, Lightship CoG, Preloading details/procedure and limiting feature e.g. tank capacity, elevating
system or spudcan/mat bearing pressure.
A.1.12 Hydrostatic and stability information
A.1.13 Material specifications.
A.1.14 For general feasibility studies, the area and season of operation, or water depth, wave height, current
speed and wind speed combinations and the assumed foundation conditions for which approval is
required.
A.1.15 Where a fatigue study is required then a fatigue history of the unit will be required. Other information
required shall be agreed with GL Noble Denton.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 17 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

A.2. SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION

A.2.1 For the assessment or approval of the unit and its foundation at a specific location the following
information should additionally be submitted to GL Noble Denton:
 Location name/designation and coordinates (with datum).
 Water depth (with datum).
 Seabed and geotechnical data (see 0016/ND ‘Seabed and Sub-Seabed Data Required for
Approvals of Mobile Offshore Units (MOU)’, Ref. [1])
 Anticipated ice accretion and/or marine growth.
 Proposed air gap (if other than minimum safe).
 Proposed rig heading (with datum).
 Proposed season for operations.
 Details of any intended deviations from the operations manual e.g. revised variable load and/or
CoG, revised windage due to deck equipment, support of more than one conductor, etc.
A.2.2 If client-supplied metocean data is provided, GL Noble Denton will verify it for suitability. The
metocean data required includes:
 Mean water level with respect to chart datum,
 Mean High Water Spring Tidal level and Storm Surge level with respect to chart datum,
 1 minute mean wind,
 Maximum wave height and associated periods,
 Significant wave height and peak period,
 Total surface current velocity and profile (velocity variation with depth),
 Marine Growth thickness profile.

A.2.3 Where weather restricted operations are proposed, the proposed limiting criteria shall be provided
(note that in accordance with 0001/ND the forecast limits will be less than the limits used for
assessment).
A.2.4 Details of any previous jack-up operations at the location.
A.2.5 For locations in areas subject to high seismic activity, exposure level L1 earthquake data in line with
the requirements of ISO 19901-2, Ref [6].

0009/ND REV 10 Page 18 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

APPENDIX B - OPERATIONS MANUAL

B.1. A copy of the Operations Manual should be submitted to GL Noble Denton for information. This should
contain all information relevant to the safety of the unit, personnel and major items of equipment on
board the unit, including but not limited to:
 General specification, setting out limitations on operating water depths and corresponding
environmental conditions
 General arrangement plans and elevations
 Compartmentation and piping systems
 Weights and centres of gravity of hull and equipment, skid unit, legs and spudcans
 Loading instructions, giving limitations on weight and centre of gravity, with worked examples of
loading calculations for elevated and afloat conditions
 Details of jacking system, stating maximum elevating, lowering and holding loads and all
necessary checks before jacking operations, including where applicable the required torque and
brake clearance for each motor
 Variable load capacities
 Tank calibration tables
 Details of propulsion units (if any)
 Details of critical downflooding openings, means of closure, and instructions for ensuring closed
under tow
 Limitations for going on and off location, including maximum allowable overpull during leg
extraction
 Critical motion curves for towage for relevant leg lengths and positions
 Preloading instructions
 Maximum and minimum permitted penetration, and reasons for any restrictions
 Instructions for filling and emptying spudcans
 Jetting system layout and operation
 Maintenance schedules for machinery and systems. Inspection schedules for structure
 Reference to more detailed manuals for machinery and systems
 Allowable loadings and positions of cantilever and substructure for operating and survival
conditions.

0009/ND REV 10 Page 19 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

APPENDIX C - GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRELOADING AT

"DIFFICULT" LOCATIONS
(2 pages)

0009/ND REV 10 Page 20 of 28

 ALERT GPR.01 Rev 2
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS March 15
FOR PRELOADING AT "DIFFICULT" LOCATIONS. Page 1 of 2

At locations where there is the possibility of rapid settlement, leg-runs or punch-through during installation, or where the anticipated
load-penetration response is not known, the points below MUST be considered when discussing / reviewing the preload plan. It is
assumed that
a. the location has already been assessed to establish its suitability for operations over the range of potential penetrations for the
preload that is to be applied and
b. it has been established that, after rapid settlement, leg-runs or punch-through, the rig is expected to be undamaged and
recoverable (see also GPR.02).

1) When there is a risk of leg runs, rapid penetration or punch-through a cautious approach should be taken during the rig
installation. The initial preload should be leg-by-leg with the hull in the water (in some circumstances a minimal airgap may be
acceptable). The hull should be kept in the water (or at minimal airgap) throughout the preload and static hold phases. If the 2
unit is to be placed near a fixed structure, it is recommended that:
(i) it be located to maximise the clearances and minimise the risk of contact
(ii) the lateral movement and potential for contact is evaluated and
(iii) where clashes could occur the leg furthest from the structure be preloaded first so that any unexpected spudcan penetrations
result in hull movements away from the structure.
At open locations the leg preloaded first should be the leg (for a 3 leg unit) or one of the legs (for a 4 leg unit) with the greatest
distance to the axis through the centres of the other two legs. However, at locations where the predicted leg run varies between
the legs, it is recommended that the leg with the greatest predicted leg run is preloaded first.
2) Consideration should be given to establishing the minimum preload required to safeguard the foundation stability for both
operating and storm survival conditions. In some cases, minimum preload required may be considerably less than full preload.
Using the minimum preload required as the target value will reduce the potential for adverse consequences during installation.
3) Installation should be attempted only when there is a weather window of sufficient duration to for the planned operation and for
recovery from an adverse penetration event. The rig crew should also be trained in RPD monitoring and mitigation and in punch-
through recovery.
4) The rig should be properly prepared and secured for the installation operation. Any excess load can exacerbate the
consequences of rapid settlement, leg-runs or punch-through. Therefore, variable load that is not needed to achieve the
required preload reactions should be removed, including any set-back in the derrick. Otherwise calculations should be
undertaken to show that the derrick and rig can survive the worst-case predicted inclination with the desired loads in place.
5) It has been suggested that tilting the hull back from the leg being preloaded can reduce the adverse effects from a leg run. This
can be beneficial, however it is important that the target preload be applied with the hull level, or slightly inclined towards the
preloaded leg such that the target preload can be realised.
Explanatory Note:
Preload calculations are generally based on the assumption that the hull is level. It therefore follows that the required preload is
not applied on the bow leg if the hull is tilted back. If the loading is increased so that the bow leg sees the correct reaction whilst
inclined backwards, and the bow leg then penetrates this will result in the hull tilting forwards and the bow leg reactions
increasing due to the movement of the Centre of Gravity towards the bow. This is no different from the condition if the unit
started from a level position and due to the typical rig dimensions and the relatively small hull tilt angles the relationship between
hull tilt angle and increase in hull buoyancy appears to be quite close to linear. With the hull in the water, the effect of tilting back
means that there is a stabilising effect due to the buoyancy of the rotated hull in the water; for small angles on a typical jack-up
this may not be significantly different from when starting from the level position. The other component of hydrostatic stability is
the increased draught of the hull as the hull pivots about the aft two leg spudcans. In this case the increase in draught is slightly
non linear with rotation angle. As a result, when starting from a tilted back position, the rate of increase in draught is not quite as
fast as if you start with the hull tilted slightly forward. In conclusion, starting with the hull tilted back may be of benefit but it can
lead to the application of the wrong preload if the angle is not taken into account.
6) When single leg preloading, set a limiting tilt angle of 0.5 to 1.0 degrees (refer to the operations manual for guidance) above
which any jacking will be stopped whilst there is still preload on board. This limit should apply at all times i.e. both when at
airgap and when in the water. It is particularly important that jacking is stopped at or before the limiting tilt angle when lowering
the high side to try to keep the hull level during the early stages of a leg-run (sometimes termed "chasing" the punch-through
leg). Refer to GL Noble Denton's good practice recommendations for punch-through recovery (GPR.02) if significant inclinations
are experienced.

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX C Page 21 of 28

 ALERT GPR.01 Rev 2
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS March 15
FOR PRELOADING AT "DIFFICULT" LOCATIONS. Page 2 of 2

7) To mitigate the potential for damage, the optimal draught is such that bilge radii, stern rakes, etc are immersed. However there
are many rigs where tank limitations would not allow the application of full preload at draught. Where available, rig leg-load
monitoring systems should be used to confirm that the load applied to the legs (allowing for hull buoyancy) achieves the target
values which, as noted earlier, may be less than the full preload. It is crucial that an accurate record is maintained of draught
and that account taken of changes in draught due to tidal effects and changes in penetration.
See 10), 11) and 12) for guidance on subsequent preloading at minimum airgap.
8) Once full load has been achieved, final single leg preload should be held for at least 1 hour AFTER penetration/settlement has
ceased. Under some circumstances, geotechnical advice can be that longer hold times are required (perhaps 3 or 6 hours).
Such longer hold times are typically required at locations where there is a high risk of punch through and in very soft formations
when leg penetrations are in slow increments.
NOTE 1: At locations where there is potential for "set-up" of the soil strength in layers above the final penetration depth it may be
recommended that each leg is driven past such zones in turn. The final preload and holding should then be undertaken in a second preloading
cycle.
NOTE 2: There can be practical difficulties when (a) working through punch-through or set-up zones and (b) when holding preload at
draught. Careful planning is therefore required, especially in areas where the tidal variation is significant.
9) The hull should not be raised above minimal airgap until such time as all the legs have been successfully preloaded. It is
important to maintain the hull in the water (or at minimal airgap) during the preload and static hold phases taking tidal variations 2
into consideration. Where used, the minimal airgap should not exceed 25 cm.
10) If the penetrations achieved after completing leg-by-leg preloading are such that the load-penetration predictions indicate
potential for further leg settlement / leg runs / possible punch-through (a ‘hang-up’ scenario), then simultaneous preloading at
airgap should NOT be undertaken as it unnecessarily exposes the unit to the same risks that single leg preloading is intended to
mitigate, with no factor of safety on footing loads. If preload holding at airgap is desired (and GL Noble Denton would generally
not recommend it), we strongly recommend that it is undertaken:
 One leg at a time,
 At minimal airgap and
 With the total load applied to the seabed reduced below that applied with the hull in the water (after deductions of
buoyancy) by about 300 tonnes (660 kips) per leg. This is to ensure that the load applied to the seabed with the hull at
airgap is less than that applied with the hull in the water, allowing for the possible influences of: environmental loads
(weather), calculation errors, minor shifts of VDL, loads from mooring or towing lines, etc. The intention is to provide
sufficient margin that there is no risk of adverse penetration behaviour, as the effects would be much worse when at
airgap.
11) If it is desired to apply full preload after all three legs have been individually preloaded with the hull in the water, then full
individual leg preloading at minimum air gap can be considered only if all legs have passed through all zones where there is the
potential for possibility of rapid settlement, leg-runs or punch-through.
12) On no account preload all 3 legs together unless the penetrations achieved indicate that all the footings have passed through all
the rapid-settlement zones, and the anticipated load-penetration curve(s) show a firm foundation with little or no further
penetration expected. Under such circumstances regular simultaneous leg preloading and preload holding at minimum airgap
are considered acceptable.
13) Impact on the Engineering Site Assessment.
a) Due to tank limitations, the result of leg-by-leg preloading at draught is that the preload that can be relied upon in the
engineering calculations can be less than that possible in a regular minimum airgap preload scenario. This is because it is
often not possible to ballast sufficiently to counteract the buoyancy at draught. However, it is often the case that single leg
preloading can achieve higher individual leg loads that simultaneous leg preloading, so this shortfall may not be as significant
as might first be expected.
b) If the preload holding load to be applied with the hull in the water is known with confidence, then it can be used as the basis
for the site-specific engineering assessment undertaken prior to going onto location. If it is not known with confidence, then
a view will need to be taken as to the appropriate preload to use in the engineering assessment. The greatest cause of
uncertainty is likely to be the determination of buoyancy from the draught marks, especially in areas where the tidal range is
significant.
c) The achievable preload in the water may result in the necessity for extra precautions, e.g. CoG control, VDL reduction,
directional assessment, seasonal operation, etc.

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX C Page 22 of 28

 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT OF JACK-UPS

APPENDIX D - GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY

FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC.
(5 pages)

0009/ND REV 10 Page 23 of 28

 ALERT GPR.02 Rev 0
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS April 10
FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC. Page 1 of 5

Introduction
These good practice recommendations address the following aspects of Punch-Through recovery:
1) The actions to be taken after the incident and before any levelling takes place.
2) The data that should be gathered and provided to the Controlling Person or Office onshore, if the inclination exceeds threshold
limits.
3) The approach to levelling if the inclination is below threshold limits.
4) Precautions to be taken when jacking when the hull is inclined.
5) Summary of responsibilities.
Each topic is addressed in further detail below.

1) The actions to be taken after the incident and before any levelling takes place.
Before undertaking any levelling:
a) Assess and record the situation and allow it to stabilise.
b) Dump / pump-out all preload, or as much as possible. When the tank level is above the sea level, use the dump valves. If it
is not, or when the hull is submerged and/or the inclination takes the preload ballast away from the dump valve use the bilge
pumps and eductors and/or portable pumps.
c) Dump or back-load liquid VDL once the preload ballast has been dumped/pumped; generally drill water can be pumped
overboard. If the rig's inclinations do not exceed the operating limits of the cranes, then it may also be possible to back-load
non-liquid VDL.

2) The data that should be gathered and provided to the Controlling Person ashore or Office, if the inclination exceeds
threshold limits.
If the inclination is less than the threshold limits for the rig type (see Table 1), go to 3) below. Otherwise, when the inclination is
greater than the threshold limits, advise the designated Controlling Person ashore or Office, who should mobilise engineering
support, of the details of the event, which should include the following:
a) Confirm rig heading and whether at stand-off or alongside position
b) Location details and geotechnical data (where these are not already on file in London).
c) Proximity of hazards (Platforms, pipelines, etc), and details of any contact already experienced or likely to be experienced,
and the (anticipated) consequences thereof.
d) Load-penetration history & assessment of where the legs are positioned within the soil strata.
e) Time, loading condition & total load on each leg when punch-through started.
f) RPDs when punch-through started and RPD’s after the event.
g) Airgap/draught, penetrations and heel and trim when punch-through started.
h) Details of any jacking after start of punch-through, including chasing the punch-through leg and the heel and trim inclinations
at which jacking was stopped.
i) Positions of each leg wrt hull (leg markings) before and after the event.
j) Airgap/draught at each leg (or other clearly specified reference points) and inclinations after the event.
k) Tidal level at the time of the event and tidal predictions for the next few days.
l) Predicted and estimated peak current speeds and directions of flow wrt punch-through.
m) Present weather and weather forecasts (these will be a key to the decision making process).
n) Lie of the leg in the guides (locate where contacts occur at upper and lower guides).
o) Confirm that all pinions are in contact on the upper flanks of rack teeth (if not please provide details).
p) If available provide torque/load readings for pinions.
q) Details of any damage (including to legs, guides/wear-plates, jack-house/frame, elevating system and hull in the way of tanks
around the leg-well) and any non-standard leg-hull contact.
And then await further advice, whilst reducing the VDL by as much as is feasible. In general it is faster to dump / remove liquids
first and, as noted in Aspect 1), this will be the only option if the cranes cannot be used.

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX D Page 24 of 28

 ALERT GPR.02 Rev 0
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS April 10
FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC. Page 2 of 5

In the event of deteriorating weather, then it may become necessary to proceed as in 3) below, so preparation of an on-board
plan is a valuable activity, even if it is subsequently superseded by a plan from the shore. In any event, it is necessary to ensure
that there are sufficient personnel to monitor and report the general leg behaviour and measure the RPD on each chord of the
legs to jacked, and that they are fully briefed and equipped.
Table 1 - Indicative "threshold inclinations" by rig type (assuming minimal buoyancy pick-up)

Approx. Water Depth + Penetration

Rig Type & Threshold Classes
100ft / 30m 200ft / 60m 300ft / 90m
Rack chock / slender bracings e.g. L780 Mod 2
1.5° 1.0° 0.7°
Opposed non-floating pinions / slender bracings e.g. MODEC 300,
Rack chock / stout bracings e.g. MSC CJ70; LeT Super Gorilla
3.5° 2.2° 1.5°
Opposed non-floating pinions / stout bracings (examples to be identified)
Other (un-opposed pinion; floating jacking system, etc.).
* 2.5° 1.5° * 1.0°
e.g. LeTourneau with teardrop chords.
* based on 116C calcs for surviving the initial event - generally the chords are critical.
Greater inclinations than those shown above can often be sustained successfully if the airgap immediately before the punch-
through was very small, or negative, and the tide has not fallen significantly i.e. there is positive draught after the event.

3) The approach to levelling if the inclination is below threshold limits.

Consider levelling the hull without external advice, only if the inclination is not more than the threshold limits for the rig type (see
Table 1), and:
a) As much preload and VDL as possible has been removed.
b) There is no observed damage.
c) The RPD's are within limits.
d) There is no adverse leg-hull interference.
However, before proceeding, ensure that a plan has been prepared, that there are sufficient personnel to monitor and report the
general leg behaviour and measure the RPD on each chord of the leg(s) to be jacked, and that they are fully briefed and
equipped. Such levelling is generally best done by jacking on the one leg that will result in the greatest initial improvement in the
situation. This will generally be by jacking the hull up the leg that has punched through - especially if the rig has gained
buoyancy.
NOTE 1: The typical recommendation in Operating Manuals to lower the high side is usually not appropriate for the larger angles of
inclination considered here. This is because the tendency will be for the moments on the jacked legs to transfer to any leg that is not jacked.
Furthermore, at significant angles of inclination there should be buoyancy at the punch-through leg that will assist the jacking effort.
Nevertheless, should such an approach be adopted, all jacking should follow the guidance in 4) below.
NOTE 2: In some instances, the personnel on board may have sufficient understanding, capability and experience such that alternative
strategies may be considered. It is important to ensure that experience is not inappropriately extrapolated. For example, a strategy that was
successful in shallow water may not be applicable in deeper water.
It is first necessary to determine the expected leg loads after removal of ballast and back-loading/dumping of variable load. This
determination should account for the effects of inclination and any buoyancy (see Appendix). Where feasible, the data computed
on board should be verified ashore. If the loads on the leg to be jacked exceed the rated capacity for jacking on that leg, then
only jack on it if:
a) It can be confirmed that the actual capacity is sufficiently in excess of the rated capacity,
b) Or, if the rated capacity is not sufficient, the hull presently has (or will have at high tide) sufficient buoyancy to make good the
deficit,
c) And/or if the deficit can be made good by utilising righting assistance from attending tugs.
If it is not possible to jack to raise the low corner, then it may be necessary to lower the high side. In such cases it is normally
best to jack the hull down each of the high-side legs in turn, following the recommendations of 4). If recovering from a large
inclination, then the high-side legs could be addressed alternately, after say each 1m (3ft) of cumulative jacking in small
increments [see 4 c) below.

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX D Page 25 of 28

 ALERT GPR.02 Rev 0
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS April 10
FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC. Page 3 of 5

4) Precautions to be taken when jacking when the hull is inclined

When jacking:
a) Do not equalise torques before jacking as this is likely to result in immediate increases in RPD, and consequent leg damage.
b) Jack on only one leg at a time, with the leg being jacked monitored continuously by a team supervised by a competent
person.
c) Any jacking should be done in small increments (typically 0.15m / 15-20 seconds); smaller increments (typically 0.05m / 5
seconds) are appropriate for units with high-slip electric jacking motors, linked hydraulic jacking motors or other means of
equalising the pinion loads between the chords of one leg). The objectives of incremental jacking are (1) to minimise any
increase in RPD, (2) to allow adverse behaviour to be detected and resolved before damage results.
d) If anything adverse is observed by the team monitoring the jacked leg during, or after, jacking (e.g. unusual levels of material
removal from the guide wear-plates, rack or pinion tooth tip chipping, legs coming out of guides / pinion-rack mis-alignment /
near contact of the legs with adjacent tanks), then stop immediately and re-evaluate.
e) After each increment, measure the RPDs and apply control as appropriate, e.g. by means of single chord jacking, noting that
there is a trade-off between excess RPD and brace damage and lower RPD with the potential for pinion overload.
f) Rack chocks should not be used in such recovery situations unless either the Operations Manual gives specific
recommendations to do so, or their use has been recommended by Engineering Support.
NOTE: The deployment of rack-chocks can have undesired consequences including (1) problems removing them if they have picked
up significant load, (2) pinion overload and/or rapid increase in RPD once they have been removed.

5) Summary of responsibilities.
a) The OIM and rig owner are ultimately responsible for the rig and MWS actions / recommendations are made to best assist
the situation.
b) Whilst the key concern of an MWS is minimising the exposure of the jack-up, situations can arise where it is appropriate to
accept damage to the jack-up in the interests of protecting people, adjacent assets and the environment.
c) Note that the decision making process will be dependent upon risk assessments which take due account of the prevailing
and forecast weather conditions.

26 April 2010

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX D Page 26 of 28

 ALERT GPR.02 Rev 0
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS April 10
FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC. Page 4 of 5

Appendix A-1
Figure A-1 shows the relationship between hull movement / inclination. The remainder of this Appendix gives guidance on the
changes in the leg loads due to hull sway and buoyancy.

Hull depth, H

Airgap, A

L=H+A+D+P
Inclination, θ = sin-1(Δ/S)
or Δ = S*sin(θ) Water depth, D
x = Δ*L/S
x = L*sin(θ)

Penetration, P

Leg spacing, S
Drop, Δ

Figure A-1 - Single leg punch-through

The effect of inclination is to increase the axial load in the leg supporting the low corner of the hull, and reduce the axial load in the
other legs. To a first approximation:
The increase in axial load on the punch-through leg = x*W/S
The reduction in axial load on the non-punch-through legs (each) = x*W/(2*S)
where:
W is the total weight of the hull (including all preload, variable, etc.) plus the weight of the legs above the hull, plus half the
weight of the legs below the hull.
The effect of buoyancy is to reduce the axial load in all the legs, predominantly in the leg supporting the low corner of the hull. This
can only be determined accurately by means of detailed calculations or a stability programme. However, the following approach (or
refinements thereof) can be used give an indicative estimate of the reduction in load on the punch-through leg. This is achieved by
dividing the submerged area into simple sections, determining the volume and centre of buoyancy of each, and then adding them. For
example, with reference to Figure A-2 which shows the definition of the variables, a typical jack-up corner can be divided into two
wedges plus a central strip, from which the leg well can be deducted:
Volume CoB aft of bow
Side wedge, P X2sin(θ)Y1 / 3 3X / 4
Volume of central wedge, C X2sin(θ)Y2 / 2 2X / 3
Side wedge, S X2sin(θ)Y1 / 3 3X / 4
Leg well cylinder, L - (X - XL - D/2) sin(θ)πD2 / 4 XL
Leg well wedge, L - πD3sin(θ) / 8 XL - D / 8
If it is assumed that the total volume obtained from the calculations above is V and the overall CoB aft of the bow is XB:
The reduction in axial load on the punch-through leg = V(S + XL - XB)/S
The reduction in axial load on the non-punch-through legs (each) = V(XB - XL)/(2*S)

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX D Page 27 of 28

 ALERT GPR.02 Rev 0
GOOD PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS April 10
FOR JACK-UP RECOVERY FROM PUNCH-THROUGH, ETC. Page 5 of 5

Appendix A-2

Wedge

Cylinder

Y1
P

D
Y2 C
L

S
Y1

XL
X

Figure A-2 - Variables used in Buoyancy Estimation

0009/ND REV 10 APPENDIX D Page 28 of 28