OFFSHORE & marine Technology | ocean & offshore engineering

Assessment of loads on
a jack-up platform
ADVANCED OFFSHORE ANALYSIS Growing importance of the offshore oil, gas, and renew

ables sectors imposes increasing safety challenges, especially for new kinds of wind turbine
platforms and jack-up units. A promising way forward is the application of advanced analysis
methods based on CFD techniques.
Ould El Moctar, Thomas E. Schellin, Tobias Zorn

ave loads on a typical

self-elevating jack-up
platform were analyzed under two conditions:
first, for a relatively large jacking
height of 13.5m above calm water level, resulting in wave loads
acting primarily on the legs,
and, second, for a smaller jacking height of 8.35m, subjecting the hull to impact loads in
higher waves. Advanced computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
techniques based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations were used
[1]. The investigated jack-up
platform has three tubular steel
legs spaced 39m apart, forming

Fig. 1. Platform plan view

Moulded hull length

46.0m

Moulded hull breadth

47.6m

Moulded hull depth

5.5m

Leg diameter

3.66m

Overall leg length

64.0m

Gross tonnage

4033 t

Net tonnage

3209 t

Table 1: Principal particulars

of jack-up platform

52

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2

an equilateral triangle (Fig. 1).

These legs can be jacked up or
down by electro-hydraulic machinery. The short front wall of
the hull beneath the helicopter
deck designates the units bow.
Table 1 lists principal particulars of the platform.
Large jacking height (13.5m)

The platform was analysed

for an operation in the North
Sea at a water depth of 33.5m.
Class rules [2] and offshore design codes [3, 4] require that
design environmental conditions be based on a significant
wave height with a period of
recurrence of at least 50 years
for the most severe anticipated
environment. For the survival
condition at the platforms
location, this units operating
manual specified a significant
wave height of 6.24m, a current velocity of 0.51 m/s, and
a wind speed of 58knots. Current and wind loads were assumed acting collinearly with
the waves. The most critical design wave for the survival condition was modelled as a deterministic long-crested wave of
11.6m height and 13s period,
propagating from the direction
of 60degrees to the longitudinal axis of the hull, (Fig. 1). An
analysis based on the SNAME
Guidelines [4] showed that
these wave parameters resulted
in the highest base shear acting
on the structure. In addition,
three steeper episodic waves of
the same period and direction
and heights of 15.8m, 19.9m
and 23.7m were investigated.
Fig. 2 shows time histories of
computed base shear forces and

Fig. 2: RANS computed base shear (top) and overturning moment

(bottom) for different wave heights and wave direction of 60 degrees

overturning moments. Negative

values of base shear represent
forces acting in the direction
of wave propagation; the corresponding values of overturning
moment are based on moment
arms measured positively upwards from the ocean bottom.
Base shear and overturning moment are the dominant safety

criteria against sliding and

capsising of the platform, respectively. Fig. 2 shows that the
computed time histories are
characterised by peaks in the
negative direction, corresponding to wave crests attacking the
structure. Peak (absolute) values
increase nonlinearly with wave
height. However, this nonlinear-

Fig. 3: Comparison of RANS computed and Morison calculated

base shear for the 11.6m wave (top) and the 15.8m wave (bottom)

ity is less pronounced between

the two highest waves because
the increase of the wetted areas
of the legs decreased when the
highest wave started to break [6].
Positive peak values of these time
histories are nearly equal for all
four wave heights. Peak values of
base shear and overturning moment occur simultaneously because the overturning moment
is a direct result of multiplying
the horizontal loads with their
respective moment arms.
For comparison, wave loads were
also calculated with the Morison
formula with coefficients according to the SNAME design guidelines for mobile jack-up units [4].
Figs. 3 and 4 show time series of
base shear and overturning moment computed with RANS in
comparison with the Morison
formula for the four considered
wave heights. Both methods predict nearly equal base shear peak
values for the three lower wave
heights; only for the highest
(breaking) wave peak values according to the Morison formula
exceed peak values from RANS
computations by about 15%.

Regarding overturning moment,

both methods yield nearly equal
peak values only for the 19.9m
wave; for the 11.6m wave, the
Morison formula overpredicts
peak values by about 15%, and
for the 15.8 and 23.7m waves
the overprediction is about
25%. Thus, Morison peak values turned out to be larger than
those from RANS computations.
A transient nonlinear finite element analysis of the units structure subject to the considered
wave conditions (including current and wind forces) was performed for the considered wave
heights. The left graph in Fig.
5 (page 54) shows the global
finite element model. For the
15.8m wave height, for example, local stresses caused by the
action of the leg guides were superimposed on global bending
stresses in the most loaded (aft
starboard) leg. At point 1 in the
right graph of Fig. 5, the overloaded structure is most likely to
experience plastic deformation.
At point 2, plastic deformation occurs for the 19.9 and the
23.7m wave heights [5, 6].

Reliability in any condition

Fig. 4: Comparison of RANS computed and Morison calculated

overturning moment for the 19.9m wave (top) and the 23.7m
wave (bottom)

info@hatlapa.de
www.hatlapa.de

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2 53

OFFSHORE & marine Technology | ocean & offshore engineering

Small jacking height (8.35m)

RANS simulations were performed for wave directions 0,

60, 90 and 180 degrees in wave
heights of 15.8m, 19.9m and
23.7m with wave lengths of
221m, 229m and 237m, respectively [7]. For the subject water
depth of 33.5m, these waves constituted shallow water waves that
tended to break after advancing
about one wave length. Waves
may hit the platform with different free-surface inclinations relative to the hull. This inclination
can be a smooth wave profile
(simulated shortly after initialisation) or a breaking wave.
Fig. 6 shows water running high
up the platform hull after wave
impact for the 19.9m wave
height. Once the wave crest is
under the hull, the entrance of
water on deck stops and green
water starts flowing off the platform. During impact, the vertical force acts upwards. Later,
when the wave crest moves under the hull, pressures become
negative and result in a downward vertical force. The associated pressure distribution
indicates that pressures during
impact become negative as water passes the edges. To avoid
unrealistically low pressures, a
cavitation model was activated
to also account for the compressibility of air. High pressures also act on platform legs.
Figure 7 shows sample time
histories of RANS simulated
horizontal (X-) and vertical (Z-)
forces acting on the platform
for the 23.7m wave. For all wave
heights considered, cases in
following waves (180 degrees

Fig. 5: Global structural finite element model (left) and stress distribution (right) in the most
loaded leg for the platform in 15.8m wave

Fig. 6: Free surface shape (left) and pressure distribution (right) in 60 degree incident 19.9m wave

wave incidence) yield forces

that exceed the forces in 60degrees incident waves by more
than 20%.Sample time histories in Fig. 8 demonstrate effects of the 19.9m wave on total
forces acting on the platform.
The horizontal force at time
17s, when the wave breaks, is
about twice as high compared
with the force at time 4s, when
the nonbreaking wave crest
passes the platform. Regarding
vertical force, the nonbreaking wave (time 4s) first causes

a large upward force equal to

about the platform weight and,
a short time later (6 to 7 s), a
large downward force equal
to about 75% of the platform
weight. The situation is similar
at 17s when the breaking wave
passes the platform.
Conclusion

This analysis accountedfor a

considerably higher jacking
height than the required minimum height. This greater jacking height was selected because

operating assignments often call

for a high hull elevation. Base
shear and overturning moment
of the platform in the highest
freak waves based on the use
of the Morison formula differed
by less than 25% from predictions obtained from the use of
RANS techniques. These comparative results demonstrated
the general usefulness of the
Morison formula approach to
assess strength-related safety aspects although only for cases of
high hull elevation. Peak values

Fig. 7: Horizontal (left) and vertical (right) forces on platform in 0, 60, 90 and 180 degrees incident waves of 23.7m height

54

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2

Fig. 8: Horizontal (left) and vertical (right) forces on platform in 180 degrees incident waves of 19.9m height

of overturning moment differed

more than peak values of base
shear. This was brought about by
the more accurate distribution of
RANS-based wave forces acting
on platform legs, especially for
the higher (breaking) waves.
For the reduced jacking height
with waves attacking the hull directly, the RANS technique investigated wave-in-deck loads. High
forces and moments were caused
by impact-related wave-structure
interaction. The changing wave
surface profile was shown to be
significant.

References

[1] Ferziger, J.H. and Peri,

M.:,Computational Methods for
Fluid Dynamics. 3rd ed., Springer, Berlin, 2003.
[2] Germansicher Lloyd, Rules for
Classification and Construction,
IV Industrial Services, 6 Offshore
Technology, Hamburg, 2007.
[3] International Maritime Organization, Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (IMO
MODU Code), London, 1989.
[4] Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers

(SNAME), Guidelines for Site

Specific Assessment of Mobile
Jack-Up Units, Technical &
Research Bulletin 5-5A, Jersey
City, 1st Ed., Rev. 2, 2002.
[5] Schellin, T.E., Jahnke, T.,
and Knzel, J., Consideration
of Freak Waves for Design of
a Jack-Up Structure. Offshore
Technology Conf., Houston,
OTC-18465-PP,
April-May
2007.
[6] El Moctar, O., Schellin, T.E.,
Jahnke, T., and Peri , M., Wave
Load and Structural Analysis for a Jack-Up Platform in

Freak Waves. ASME J. Offshore

Mechanics & Arctic Engg., Vol.
131(2), 2009, Article 021602.
[7] Schellin, T.E., Peri, M., and
El Moctar, O., Wave-In-DeckLoad Analysis for a Jack-Up
Platform, ASME J. Offshore
Mechanics & Arctic Engg., Vol.
133(2), 2011, Article 021303.
The authors:
Ould El Moctar, Thomas
E. Schellin, Tobias Zorn,
Germanischer Lloyd,
Hamburg, Germany

built with

SHIPCONSTRUCTOR

cad/cam software

Offshore Freedom
LeTourneau Super 116E Jack Up Rig
Lamprell plc

www.ShipConstructor.com/so

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2 55

DVV Media Group GmbH

Sales Department
P.O. BOX 10 16 09
20010 Hamburg
GERMANY

Yes, I would like to test 3 issues Ship&Offshore

Ship&Offshore is the English-language international trade magazine which provides you six
times a year with global insights into trends and developments of the maritime industry.
Ship&Offshore offers the reader specialist information from all sectors of the maritime
industry, focusing on the shipbuilding industry, ship technology and the growth market,
offshore technology.


---> If you prefer to fill in your data online, please click here. <--Please send the trial issues of Ship&Offshore to:
by eMail

 or by post 

Company
Company activity
Department
First name/Name
Telephone / Fax
eMail
Street / P.O. BOX
Postal code, Town, Country
Date / Signature

SPI_ON_1102

service@shipandoffshore.net www.shipandoffshore.net

In Focus

Singapore

16
Shipbuilding &

Equipment

Shipbuilding &

Equipment

Singapore

Feature

Piping systems
26 Production optimisation and life
cycle management

34 Prosperous times ahead for

shipyards

Propulsion & manoeuvring

technology
10 Gas engine propulsion as an
attractive alternative
15 LPG-powered ME-GI engine
16 Lubricity of low viscosity fluids
19 Intelligent combustion monitoring
20 Flap-type rudders for TSHD

DC bus system for OSVs

29 Hydronic balancing systems for

cruise ships

Industry news
30 Laser beam arc hybrid welding
improves productivity
32 Hull Performance Solutions

21 Fuel management system

28 Piping systems for marine sectors

Electrical engineering &

onboard networks
22 Automation is key to cargo ships
hybrid propulsion system

New software interface

38 Enhanced safety portfolio

Joint offshore forces

Large potential for LNG in

regional shipping

40 Patented descaling equipment

Offshore support vessel launched

42 Heavy lift hovercraft

FPSO modification

43 Second wind farm installation

vessel ordered
44 Third Sea Asia with record
numbers

24 Network redundancy with

standard products

The new
www.shipandoffshore.net

3434_anz_mtp_spi_homepage_183x40.indd 1

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2

Website!

incl.
online
archive!

01.02.2011 15:20:26

Content | March/April 2011

56

78

Offshore &
Marine Technology

Offshore &
Marine Technology

Ship

Oil & gas

46 Produced water by
oil and gas operations

Offshore & arctic

technology
60 Robotised rig in the Arctic

Ocean & offshore

engineering
52 Assessment of loads on
a jack-up platform

Industry news
62 Cooperation on lifeboat

Navigation &
communication
74 SharpEye radar takes aim at
pirates
75 Marine terminal for small vessels

56 Safe access to platforms at sea

58 HiLoad DP completes sea trials

Versatile conference and short

courses

Hyundai chosen to build

super vessel

XX german offshore equipment

The second edition of the German Offshore Equipment directory,
an initiative of German Engineering Federation VDMA in cooperation
with the German Association for Marine Technology (GMT), is
enclosed to the copies of this Ship&Offshore issue 57

Operation

Industry news
76 European Flagship transport
project sees progress
78 Bulk containers for lease

Regulars
Comment............................ 3
news&facts .................... 6
Buyers Guide ................ 63
Imprint.............................. 79

Ship & Offshore | 2011 | No 2 5