OTC 12074

Jack-up Response Measurements and the Underprediction of Spud-Can Fixity By

SNAME 5-5A
Keith Nelson and Pharr Smith, Santa Fe International, Mike Hoyle, Richard Stonor and Thomas Versavel, Noble Denton
Europe Ltd.
Copyright 2000, Offshore Technology Conference
A fundamental influence on the way in which jack-up units
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 Offshore Technology Conference held in perform is the assumption made about the support provided at
Houston, Texas, 1–4 May 2000.
the seabed. It has long been realized that if the legs of the jack-
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of up experience soil fixity a number of benefits will follow.
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to Figure 1 shows the leg of a jack-up unit and the moment
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, distribution up the leg as the hull is moved sideways under the
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written influence of environmental loading. If the spudcan is pinned at
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The the seabed there will be no moment at the bottom of the leg. If
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. the leg is fully fixed at the seabed the moment at the lower
guide (ML) will be equal but opposite to the moment at the
spudcan (MF) assuming the hull flexibility is negligible. If
Abstract
some lesser level of seabed fixity is present the leg bending
Measurements of dynamic behaviour and environmental
moment distribution will lie between the fixed and pinned
conditions have been gathered since 1992 on three of Santa
conditions. Spudcan fixity has the benefit of reducing lower
Fe’s jack-up units operating in the North Sea. These
guide bending moment, reducing loads on rack chocks and/or
measurements have been analysed to provide data on natural
pinions and reducing hull motions.
frequencies of response for these units operating in a range of
Another impact of seabed fixity is on the natural frequency
water depths and storm loading conditions in the Central
of the platform for hull motion in the horizontal plane. This is
North Sea. The units have been placed at a variety of sites
also shown in Figure 1, which illustrates the higher natural
with both clay and sand seabed conditions. Some locations
frequencies that are found when a jack-up unit has moment
consisted of layered soils conditions.
fixity at the seabed. If complete fixity is not achieved, then a
The response of the units at these locations and the implied
condition of partial fixity can be said to exist as represented by
levels of fixity have been compared with predictions based on
the jack-up with rotational springs located at the seabed. Also
the SNAME T&R 5-5A method of jack-up assessment. The
shown in this figure is a typical storm wave frequency
trends observed in the measured and theoretical results show
distribution, which illustrates a further benefit of seabed fixity.
generally good agreement, but there is strong evidence that the
The more fixed a jack-up, the further away the natural period
theoretical methods significantly under-predict the actual
moves from the main storm energy frequencies for typical
seabed fixity available to this type of unit.
conditions.
The paper reviews the differences found between
The benefits of spudcan fixity, if it is present, are clear; the
measurements and predictions and discusses the implications
real question is how much fixity can be justified. This in turn
for the effective use of the SNAME T&R 5-5A methodology
is largely reduced to a question of the soils behavior of the
in the future.
foundation below the spudcan. Various attempts have been
made to establish what levels of fixity should be assumed, one
Introduction and Background
of the first being a joint-industry-funded investigation that
There has been considerable effort over the last decade to
reported in 1987 (see Ref 4). The problem is recognized as
improve the understanding of the structural behavior of jack-
being extremely complicated. It may be difficult to obtain
up platforms. Much of this work has been reflected in the
good quality soils data for the location and the soils may vary
SNAME published document on Site Specific Assessment of
locally so that the conditions under the various legs of one unit
Mobile Jack-up Units. The first edition of this document was
differ. The soil condition under the spudcan of a jack-up may
published in 1994 and a revised version in 1997 (Refs 1 and
consist of layers that cannot be modeled simply. It is also
2). This assessment document was developed from a joint-
noted that the guidelines for the estimation of small strain
industry-funded study and its development is described in a
elastic stiffnesses are for homogeneous isotropic soil
paper by Jones et al (Ref 3).
conditions, so that conservatisms will naturally be included
2 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL
when estimating stiffnesses for actual, anisotropic and non-
homogenous soil conditions.
Furthermore the act of installing the jack-up generally
involves the application of large vertical loads at installation
(preloading) in order to minimize subsequent settlement. The
action of embedding the spudcan into the soil in this way
causes large stress and strain changes in the soil material so it
is no longer in the same condition as when the soil borehole
investigation was made. This makes it difficult to predict the
subsequent horizontal and moment capacities of the spudcan.
It is normal practice to base the footing capacity on the
measured borehole data even though these large strain
distortions of the soil can produce beneficial strain hardening
effects. Any additional displacements could lead to further
enhancement of soil capacity and stiffness.
Preload was originally thought of as a means of loading the
foundation to levels at least equal to the assessment storm
vertical load so as to prevent settlement. However SNAME
now recommends preloads greater than the storm vertical load
to account for the effect of horizontal and rotational loads
which will be experienced during a storm, but which cannot be
applied during installation.
As a result of these complications the approach taken by
guidance documents to date has been understandably cautious.
The methodology adopted by the SNAME document is not
based on a unified geotechnical theory. It is restricted to
homogenous soils and consists of empirical theories fitted to
laboratory and centrifuge test results. Osborne et al (Ref 5)
contains a description of the theories that have been developed
in this way for use in spudcan analysis.
Full Scale Measurements
Various measurement programs on full-scale jack-up units
have been undertaken to improve our understanding of
spudcan fixity. These started in earnest about ten years ago
and reports have been published of measurements made on a
number of rig types (see Refs 6-8). The results of these
measurement programs are reviewed briefly by Temperton et
al (Ref 9) which also presents results from an ongoing
sequence of measurement programs carried out by Santa Fe on
three of their North Sea jack-up units: Monitor, Magellan and
Galaxy-I. This set of measurement programs has been taking
place since 1992 and has continued on the Magellan over the
last winter season. The purpose of this paper is to bring
together results from the most recent available data (Magellan
1998-99 winter season) and place them in context with the
accumulated results for this group of rigs over a range of
North Sea locations, seabed conditions and environmental
loadings. These results indicate that the methods currently
proposed in the SNAME Guidelines consistently underpredict
the seabed fixity determined by measurement.
Jack-up Descriptions and Locations
Jack-up Types
The reported measurements were made on a fleet of three
jack-up units operating in the North Sea over a period from
OTC 12074
1992 to 1999. Two of the units (the Santa Fe Magellan and the
Monitor) were Friede & Goldman L780 Mod V units and one
(the Santa Fe Galaxy-1) was a Friede & Goldman L780 Mod
VI.
Jack-up Locations
The locations for which measurements were made, and results
analyzed, are shown in Figure 3. Further location details are
provided in Table 1 which also summarizes the relevant soils
conditions. Several storms were analyzed for each location
and these are listed in Table 2. Generally the instrumentation
systems received routine maintenance and, in some cases,
upgrade each autumn to ensure they were in top condition
during the winter period.
Measurement Equipment and Reports
All the units had similar sets of measurement equipment a
typical outline of which is shown in Figure 4. The hull
motions were measured using accelerometers located in
orthogonal pairs near each leg. These sensors were placed in
waterproof cases and mounted in the outboard sides of the tops
of the jacking frames. The jacking frames provide an
extremely stiff foundation and help to minimize the effects of
high frequency hull vibrations. Also placing the
accelerometers at such widely spaced positions assists in
measuring the yaw motions.
Wind conditions were measured using anemometers
mounted at suitably high locations. All units had anemometers
located on the top of the derrick and at most locations the rigs
had the capability to measure wind speed and direction at the
top of one of the legs using a radio-transmitting device.
However when the units were located in the deeper water
depths the highest point on the rigs was at the top of the
drilling derrick. This sensor generally provided the best data.
Wave height was measured by a downward looking sensor
mounted at the bow of the unit. In most cases the sensor was a
radar altimeter but limited use was also made of a laser wave
gauge. Wave direction was not measured directly but
estimated from the recorded wind direction and also from
visual records made by personnel on the unit. These were
generally made with the assistance of the standby vessel that
was asked to report on both wave and swell direction. Current
was not measured.
The sensors were monitored by a central data logging
computer located in the accommodation. This provided signal
conditioning (filtering and amplification) and recorded the
data digitally at a continuous rate of 2 Hz. Data was recorded
to optical discs or compact disc (CD) and returned to shore for
analysis.
Soils survey reports were available from the site
assessment studies performed for the units and the installation
report by the warranty surveyor provided site conditions and
penetration. Additional survey information of spudcan
penetration was also used. Regular reports from the units
provided summaries of visual observations on the weather and
the status of the rack chocks and pinions.
OTC 12074 JACK-UP RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS AND THE UNDERPREDICTION OF SPUD-CAN FIXITY BY SNAME 5-5A
Analysis Methodology
The following description of the analysis undertaken refers
specifically to the work done for the Magellan at Elgin
Franklin for the winter season 1998-9. However it is very
similar to that undertaken for the other 7 unit/locations which
are summarized in this report.
At the end of the measurement season the environmental
conditions experienced were reviewed and selected periods
chosen for detailed analysis. Generally the periods chosen
were those with the largest wave loads and typically a one-
hour segment of data was analyzed. The environmental
conditions (wind and wave) were analyzed to provide
equivalent design wind speeds and wave spectra and the hull
accelerations were integrated to give hull motions. The
environmental conditions were then used as inputs into a
structural model of the jack-up and the resulting motions of
the model compared with the full scale measured values.
As the measurement system provided a total of six
accelerometers to measure the three horizontal motions (surge,
sway and yaw) redundant data permitted estimates to be made
of the system error. With the improved system installed on the
Magellan in 1998 this has resulted in a correlation values of
approximately 0.999 indicating excellent agreement between
the sensors.
Finite Element Model Configuration
The arrangement of the 3-leg, equivalent beam, stick model
used in the structural analysis is shown in Figure 2. It was
essentially the same model as is used in normal global
assessment calculations for the unit. Leg stiffness included
bending and torsional components.
The hull weights used in the analysis were obtained from
records collected from the unit during the instrumented period.
The leg to hull connection stiffness assumed that the chocks
were in place as reported. The finite element analyses were
performed as prescribed in SNAME T&R 5-5A (1997).
The initial spudcan boundary conditions used in the finite
element (see Table 3) covered four cases:
• Spudcan pinned at seabed
• Spudcan fixed at seabed
• seabed springs using SNAME T&R 5-5A (1994)
• seabed springs using SNAME T&R 5-5A (1997)
The spudcan spring orientations are shown in Figure 2 and the
numerical values used are listed in the Table 3.
Note that the recommended stiffness reduction factor of
0.5 in SNAME T&R 5-5A 1994, which was removed from
the 1997 revision, was not applied for the purposes of this
study.
Comparison of Natural Periods
The determination of the theoretical natural period of the
Magellan rig was performed in the time domain so that non-
linear effects such as p-delta could be incorporated, as they are
known to cause significant differences (typically up to 1.5
seconds) in the natural period. For convenience of presentation
3
the individual (computed or measured) accelerations were
combined to give surge, sway and yaw accelerations of the
whole hull.
Hull surge, sway and yaw displacement results for a
specific measured period (17th Feb 1999 with Hsig=5.8 m and
Tpeak=12.5 s) are shown in Figure 5 in the form of a frequency
spectrum of the measured values. The displacement values
(power spectral density in units of meters squared per Hertz)
are plotted vertically on a logarithmic scale. The results show
that the rig is responding at two particular frequencies. The
first peak occurs at the wave frequency (about 0.08 Hz) as a
result of direct wave force on the unit. Another peak occurs at
the natural frequencies of the unit - about 0.16 Hz in surge and
sway and 0.18 Hz in yaw. As expected surge and sway
frequencies are similar, as the leg stiffness is the same about
orthogonal axes and the leg centers are arranged on an
approximately equilateral plan. The yaw frequency is different
because the rotational inertia is not equivalent to the linear
inertia. It is interesting to note that there is virtually no wave
effect in the yaw motions.
A comparison is presented in Figure 6 of the measured
results against the predictions of the computer model for this
storm event. Surge and sway displacements are plotted. The
first thing to notice is that the model predictions for the pinned
footing case have only one peak and this occurs close to the
wave frequency. The SNAME predicted values for surge and
sway both correspond closely to the pinned case. For the case
of the fixed footing there are two peaks predicted by the model
– one at the wave frequency and one at the natural frequency.
The predictions for the two versions of the SNAME
method both agree very closely with the pinned footing case.
As expected the SNAME T&R 5-5A 97 predicted spudcan
footing stiffness (which is greater than the SNAME T&R 5-
5A 94 stiffness as shown in Table 3) has a slightly higher
natural frequency. This moves it further away from the wave
period and thus results in smaller displacements. However
these displacements are still much greater than the measured
displacements. Note that the results in Figure 6 are plotted on
a logarithmic scale and the displacement power spectrum of
the SNAME predictions is two to three orders of magnitude
greater than that found from the measurements.
The measured results do not indicate exactly the same
natural frequency as that predicted for the fixed condition and
this is consistent with there being some level of flexibility in
the foundation. Indeed this difference provides a convenient
method of defining the level of stiffness measured for the
particular combination of rig and location. This method is
known as the “dynamic” measure of fixity and is described in
the Appendix. With this method of describing fixity, fully
fixed and pinned conditions are defined respectively as one
and zero.
The measured dynamic fixity value for Magellan at
Franklin was found to be 0.76 while the dynamic fixity of the
computer model with the SNAME predicted stiffnesses was
0.10. This underestimation of the fixity by the SNAME
method is evident for all the locations analysed as shown in
4 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL
Figure 7 which plots the mean measured dynamic fixity found
at the different locations and compares them with the fixity
predicted by the SNAME method.
Spudcan Fixity under Large Storm Loading
The conclusion from the observations made to date is that the
fixity provided by the spudcan foundations is significantly
larger than that predicted by the SNAME methods. However
there remains the question of how stable these fixity values are
over time and particularly when the rig is subjected to more
severe storms. Figure 8 plots values of dynamic fixity
measured for the available storm conditions. The fixity is
plotted against the maximum storm wave expressed as a
percentage of the maximum 50 year storm wave for the
location in question. The measured dynamic fixity is generally
steady over the range of storms investigated although there is
some indication of a reduction in fixity for Magellan at Joanne
under the largest storm conditions experienced. However the
reduction is modest and even with this reduction the measured
fixity (62%) is still nearly double the SNAME value (32%).
The SNAME stiffness values, which have been discussed
so far, are the initial estimates that are governed by the soils
shear modulus.
The measurements show that the initial estimates of
stiffness given by the SNAME equations are clearly far too
low. As a consequence the dynamic behavior will be over-
predicted because the jack-up natural period with these low
stiffnesses will be closer to the wave period. Given that there
is little evidence to show degradation of the foundation
stiffness with increasing load level it is likely that the
measured stiffness values will be sustained at higher values.
However the SNAME method requires that when the
foundation loads approach the yield surface the effective
rotational foundation stiffness should be reduced.
This is illustrated in Figure 9, which plots the maximum
stress states found for the Magellan at three locations. The plot
is presented with axes for horizontal and vertical load. The
moment condition is represented by the three boundaries of
QM/MLO = 0.171, 0.271 and 0.489 representing the worst loads
at Joanne, Franklin and North Everest respectively. These
loads were computed by running a non-linear finite element
model of the rig under the measured environmental conditions
and iteratively adjusting the seabed fixity, using the SNAME
method, to maintain the spudcan loads within the permitted
SNAME envelope.
The proximity of the plotted points (using QH/HLO and
QV/VLO) to these boundaries indicate how closely the points
approach the SNAME yield condition for each case. In
SNAME T&R 5-5A (97) this is termed the failure ratio, rf,
and is defined as:
rf =
{[Q
H / H LO ] + [QM / M LO ] }
2 2 0.5
4.[QV / VLO ][
. 1 − QV / VLO ]
where:
QH = applied factored horizontal load
OTC 12074
QM = applied factored moment load
QV = applied factored vertical load
HLO = horizontal yield capacity
MLO = moment yield capacity
VLO = vertical yield capacity
The SNAME practice document does not permit its initial
estimate of soils stiffness to be used in cases where large soils
loadings are experienced as a result of storm loadings on the
jack-up leg. It does this by requiring the soil stiffness to be
reduced as a function of the failure ratio, rf. The equation
SNAME uses to relate the failure ratio to the stiffness
reduction factor, fr, is:
fr = (1 − r ) + 0.1e
f
(
100 rf −1 )
This function is illustrated in Figure 10, which also plots
the failure ratios found for the Magellan for the loads plotted
in Figure 9. In the case of Magellan at North Everest the
failure ratio was found to be 0.61 giving a stiffness reduction
factor of 0.62. However the trend shown for that jack-up and
location in Figure 8 is for negligible change in dynamic fixity
over the available load cases.
The SNAME practice mentions the possibility of using
work hardening plasticity but it does not describe such
methods. With the limited exception of footings penetrated to
less than their maximum bearing area, on sand, the procedure
detailed in SNAME fails to recognize that foundation
settlement will lead to an expansion of the yield surface.
Conclusions
From the data collected since 1992 on three rigs at various
locations in the North Sea a large body of information
concerning the interaction of the jack-up with the seabed has
been obtained. The results indicate that the seabed fixity
present is significantly greater than the fixity which is
provided in the SNAME T&R 5-5A 97 method for assessing
jack-up units.
Foundation stiffnesses are considered to be non-linear, and
the numerical algorithms used to model the load displacement
responses are geared towards the load levels experienced
under extreme environmental conditions. In view of this it is
probable that the methods underestimate the small strain
stiffnesses under comparatively low environmental load
conditions. It is also probable that the algorithms
underestimate the degree of fixity under extreme load
conditions, but this can only be confirmed by continued
observation or improved laboratory and theoretical modeling.
However, maximum wave heights of up to 18 meters have
been recorded and there is no consistent evidence from the
measurements that seabed fixity decreases with large storm
loads. In fact, the measurements in some cases show increases
in seabed fixity with increasing storm load. These results
suggest that SNAME is consistently conservative in its
estimation of foundation stiffness.
OTC 12074 JACK-UP RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS AND THE UNDERPREDICTION OF SPUD-CAN FIXITY BY SNAME 5-5A 5

Consideration should be given to updating SNAME The static fixity is given by:
T&R 5-5A (1997) modeling of soils by using the measured
data to calibrate the theoretical methods available. K rot
Static Fixity =
EI
K rot +
Acknowledgements L
We thank Charles Springett of Santa Fe International and where Krot is the rotational stiffness of the foundation (i.e. Kxx
Julian Osborne of Noble Denton Europe for their assistance in and Kyy), EI is the leg bending resistance and L the distance
reviewing the paper and discussions and suggestions on the from the point of effective penetration of the spudcan to the
interpretation of the measurements. Valuable assistance has level of effective leg-to-hull connection.
also been provided in running computer model cases and However, this measure of fixity does not deal with the
reduction of measured data by other staff members at Noble dynamics of the structure as a number of parameters which
Denton Europe. The work summarized here has been carried affect the performance of the jack-up are not included in the
out almost continuously since 1992 and the authors recognize above definition (p-delta effects for example).
the contributions made by many others in the gathering and The dynamic fixity is given by:
reduction of such a large body of data.
fm − fp
2 2

Dynamic Fixity =
ff − fp
2 2

References
1 SNAME T&R 5-5A (1994), “Site Specific Assessment of where fm is the natural frequency of the rig, fp is its theoretical
Mobile Jack-Up Units”, 1st Edition, Society of Naval Architects natural frequency assuming pinned footings and , ff its
and Marine Engineers, New Jersey, (1994). theoretical natural frequency assuming fully fixed footings.
2 SNAME T&R 5-5A (1997), “Site Specific Assessment of
Mobile Jack-Up Units”, 1st Edition - Rev. 1, Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, New Jersey, (1997).
3 Jones, D.E., Bennett, W.T. and Hoyle, M.J.R, “The Joint
Industry Development of a Recommended Practice for the Site
Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-up Units”; Offshore
Technology Conference.
4 Noble Denton & Associates Ltd. (1987), “Foundation Fixity of
Jack-Up Units”; Volumes I & II (Confidential to membership)
dated 10th March 1987.
5 Osborne J.J., Trickey J.C., Houlsby G.T., & James R.G. (1991)
Findings from a Joint Industry Study on Foundation Fixity of
Jack-Up Units Offshore Technology Conference 6615
6 Brekke J.N., Murff J.D., Campbell R.B., & Lamb W.C. (1990)
Calibration of Jack-Up Structural Analysis Procedure Using
Field Measurements from a North Sea Jack-Up Offshore
Technology Conference 6465
7 Hambly E.C., Imm G.R., & Stahl B. (1990) Jack-Up
Performance and Foundation Fixity Under Developing Storm
Conditions Offshore Technology Conference 6466
8 McCarron W.O., & Broussard M.D. (1992) Measured Jack-Up
Response and Spudcan Seafloor Interaction for an Extreme
Storm Event Proc. 6th Int, Conference on Behaviour of Offshore
Structures, BOSS ’92, Imperial College, London.
9 Temperton, I, Stonor, R.W.P. and Springett, C.N. “Measured
Spudcan Fixity: Analysis of Instrumentation Data from Three
North Sea Jack-Up Units and Correlation to Site Assessment
Procedures”, paper presented at the Sixth International
Conference on the Jack-Up Platform, City University, London,
September, (1997).

Appendices
Measures of Fixity
There are two commonly used definitions for fixity: "Static
fixity" and "Dynamic fixity". These are described in detail in
Temperton et al (Ref 9).
6 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL OTC 12074

Table 1: Rig Locations for which measurements and detailed analysis are available.
Rig Location Block Preload Rig Elevated WD Air Pen Description of Soils Characte
/kN Heading Hull (m) Gap /m risation
(degrees) Mass (m) used in
(tonne) Analysis
Galaxy-1 Ranger 29/4b 128,000 246 16,385 91.8 19.8 1.5 0.0-0.4m:loose sand; 0.4-4.5m:Dense Sand
sand;4.5-6.5m: interlaayered sands
and clays; 6.5-15m: very stiff clay;
15m-:very dense sand
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 128,000 198 16,378 74.5 20.1 1.2 0-14m: silty sands of the fourth Sand
Formation; 14-:over consolidated clay
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 128,000 11 16,786 89.4 19.2 6.7 0.0-4.0m:firm clay; 4.0-7.5m: stiff Clay
clay; 7.5m-:hard clay
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 85,000 210 12,560 88.5 19.0 3.0 0.0-0.1m: medium sand; 0.1-6.0m:soft Clay
to stiff clay;6-18m: very dense fine
sand; 16m-:hard to very hard clay
Magellan Joanne 30/7a 82,500 178 12,854 77.0 21.0 0.9 0-14m: Silty sands of the fourth Sand
formation; 14-:overconsolidated clay
Monitor Joule 44/14b 83,000 130 11,519 28.3 18.6 0.6 0-8.5m: Sand; 8.5-20m Quatenary Sand
Boulders Bank Formation (gravelly)
Monitor Halley N. 30/12b-B 81,100 273 11,457 83.5 19.8 0.9 0-0.7m: Medium Dense Sand; 0.7- Sand
1.2m: Olive grey clayey silt; 1.2-
:Medium Dense Silty Sand
Magellan Franklin 29/5b 290 13,698 91.8 23.5 2.4 0.0-0.1 loose Holocene sand veneer; Clay over
0.1-5.0m:firm to stiff clay of the Forth Sand
formation; 5.0m-: medium dense to
dense sand of the Fischer formation.
Overlies hard sandy clays and very
dense sands

Table 2: Environmental Conditions for Specifically analysed cases.

Rig Location Block No. Date Hmax (m) Wind Wind
Direction Speed
(deg) (knots)
Galaxy-1 Ranger 29/4b 10/03/92 6.00 342 40
Galaxy-1 Ranger 29/4b 28/03/92 8.54 343 41
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 20/11/93 3.08 123 19
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 21/11/93 7.58 124 28
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 23/11/93 2.24 55 8
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 27/11/93 1.72 158 14
Galaxy-1 Judy 30/7a 13/12/93 7.16 102 36
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 16/11/95 7.48 82 22
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 07/12/95 7.83 161 36
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 01/01/96 9.14 170 33
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 02/01/96 3.64 199 15
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 06/01/96 12.41 169 43
Galaxy-1 Shearwater 23/30b-K 25/01/96 9.35 149 37
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 21/01/94 3.91 234 31
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 23/01/94 13.08 274 53
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 26/01/94 5.21 311 24
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 28/01/94 14.44 308 58
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 30/01/94 13.29 303 55
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 04/02/94 12.59 123 46
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 15/02/94 12.94 138 49
Magellan N.Everest 22/10 16/02/94 3.68 13 11
Magellan Joanne 30/7a 10/01/95 17.89 322 66
Magellan Joanne 30/7a 12/01/95 14.67 348 45
Magellan Joanne 30/7a 22/01/95 12.93 N/A N/A
Magellan Joanne 30/7a 31/01/95 12.21 N/A N/A
Monitor Joule 44/14b 14/11/93 11.02 353 50
Monitor Joule 44/14b 21/11/93 7.61 100 37
Monitor Halley North 30/12b-B 20/12/93 9.01 308 16
Monitor Halley North 30/12b-B 21/12/93 9.37 295 29
Magellan Franklin 29/5b 17/2/.99 10.9 320 37
Magellan Franklin 29/5b 19/3/99 7.1 320 39
Magellan Franklin 29/5b 21/4/99 6.6 125 27
OTC 12074 JACK-UP RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS AND THE UNDERPREDICTION OF SPUD-CAN FIXITY BY SNAME 5-5A 7

Table 3: Spudcan Equivalent Stiffness values used in Finite Element Model for Magellan at Elgin Franklin
Pinned Fixed SNAME 94 SNAME 97 Tuned Values
Kx [N/m] 1015 1015 2.220 108 6.118 108 5.94 109
Ky [N/m] 1015 1015 2.220 108 6.118 108 5.94 109
Kz [N/m] 1015 1015 1.980 108 2.680 108 2.60 109
Kxx [N.m/rad] 0 1015 8.306 109 1.213 1010 1.17 1011
Kyy [N.m/rad] 0 1015 8.306 109 1.213 1010 1.17 1011
Kzz [N.m/rad] 0 1015 9.166 109 2.35 1010 2.27 1011
8 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL OTC 12074

JACK-UP UNIT LOADING PINNED FOOTING WITH “SPUDCAN FIXITY” WITH FULL FIXITY

ML ML ML

SEA BED
MF = 0 MF
MF ML
(M L= Lower Guide Moment, M F = Footing Moment)

PINNED ANALYSIS ANALYSIS WITH FIXED ANALYSIS

“SPUDCAN FIXITY”

DISTRIBUTION OF
WAVE ENERGY
WAVE ENERGY

FREQUENCY / Hz

Figure 1: Influence of Spudcan Fixity on Natural Frequency.

Figure 2: Structural Model of Jack-Up Showing Axis System of Spudcan Springs

OTC 12074 JACK-UP RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS AND THE UNDERPREDICTION OF SPUD-CAN FIXITY BY SNAME 5-5A 9

1: Magellan,
North Everest 22/10

2: Galaxy-1,
Shearwater 22/30b-K

3: Magellan,
Franklin 29/5b

4: Galaxy-1,
Ranger 29-4b

5: Magellan,
Joanne 30/7a

6: Galaxy-1,
Judy 30/7a

7: Monitor,
Halley North 30/12b-B

8: Monitor,
Joule 44/14b

Figure 3: Locations of Jack-Up Units Considered in this Study.

Derrick
Derrick Anemometer

Anemometer Leg
Anemometer

Bow Wave Gauge

(Under Heli-deck) Port Accelerometer Pair

Port Leg
10.35 m Anemometer Bow Accelerometer
Pair
22.25 m
20.42 m
C ANTILE VER
PI PE RA CK

PIPE RACK

QUARTER S

Bow Wave Gauge

Derrick (Under Heli-deck)
Anemometer

Starboard Accelerometer Pair

Figure 4: Standard Measurement Instrumentation Package on Jack-Up.

10 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL OTC 12074

Surge Sway

0.01000 0.01000
2/Hz)

/Hz)
2
Power Spectral Density (m

Power Spectral Density (m

0.00100 0.00100

0.00010 0.00010
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Yaw

1.000E-05
2/Hz)
Power Spectral Density (rad

1.000E-06

1.000E-07

1.000E-08
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 5: Measured Displacement Response (surge, sway and yaw) for “Magellan” at “Franklin”; (17February 1999)
OTC 12074 JACK-UP RESPONSE MEASUREMENTS AND THE UNDERPREDICTION OF SPUD-CAN FIXITY BY SNAME 5-5A 11

Surge Sway

1.00000 Fixed 1.00000 Fixed

Pinned Pinned
Power Spectral Density (m 2/Hz)

Power Spectral Density (m 2/Hz)

Measured Measured
0.10000 SNAME '94 0.10000 SNAME '94
SNAME '97 SNAME '97

0.01000 0.01000

0.00100 0.00100

0.00010 0.00010
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6: Comparison of Measured and Predicted Displacement for "Magellan" at "Franklin"; (17 February 1999)

Magellan @ Franklin, Block

29/5b

Galaxy-1 @ Shearwater,
Block 22/30b

Magellan @ N.Everest,
Block 22/10

Galaxy-1 @ Ranger, Block

29/4b

Galaxy-1 @ Judy, Block SNAME Fixity

30/7a Measured Fixity

Magellan @ Joanne, Block

30/7a

Monitor @ Halley, Block

30/12b

Monitor @ Joule, Block

44/14b

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dynamic Fixity (%)

Figure 7: Summary of Measured Dynamic Fixity Compared with SNAME Predicted Values
12 KEITH NELSON, PHARR SMITH, MIKE HOYLE, RICHARD STONOR AND THOMAS VERSAVEL OTC 12074

Variation in Fixity with Maximum Wave Height

Galaxy-1 at Ranger
% "Dynamic Fixity"

100
80 Galaxy-1 at Judy

60 Galaxy-1 at Shearwater

40 Magellan at North Everest

20
Magellan at Joanne
0
Monitor at Joule
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Wave Height as a Percentage of Maximum 50 Monitor at Halley North

Year Wave Height/% Magellan @Franklin

Figure 8: Variation in Measured Dynamic Fixity with Wave Height.

Q V /V L O Magellan: Joanne
Q M /M LO =0
Magellan: N. Everest
1
Magellan: Franklin
Q M /M LO = 0.171 (Joanne)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Q M /M LO = 0.271 (Franklin)
0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Q M /M LO = 0.489 (N. Everest) Q H /H L O

Figure 9: Soils Stress States Computed for Magellan at Three Locations compared with SNAME Predicted Yield Envelopes.
SNAME Predicted Stiffness Reduction

1 fr = 0.847 (@ Franklin)
fr = 0.667 (@ Joanne)
0.8
fr = 0.624 (@ N. Everest)
Factor (fr )

0.6

0.4

SNAME prediction
0.2

0
0.01 0.1 1
SNAME Predicted Failure Ratio (rf )

Figure 10: SNAME recommended Stiffness Reduction Factor plotted against SNAME failure ratio.