Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology Department Maritime and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone +31 (0)15-2782889
Fax +31 (0)15-2781397
www.mtt.tudelft.nl
Specialization: Transport Engineering and Logistics
Report number: 2013.TEL.7807
Title: Operational window for

touchdown of jack-up barges
Author: J. van Essen
Title (in Dutch): Werkbaarheid voor plaatsing van jack-ups
Assignment: literature
Confidential: yes
Initiator (university): ir. W. van den Bos
Initiator (company): ir. L. van Adrichem (Temporary Works Design, Rotterdam)
Supervisor: ir. W. van den Bos
Date: November, 2013
This report consists of 43 pages and 2 appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For
commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are
only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning
the contents of the advice.
FACULTY OF MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Delft University of Technology Department of Marine and Transport Technology
Mekelweg 2
2628 CD Delft
the Netherlands
Phone +31 (0)15-2782889
Fax +31 (0)15-2781397
www.mtt.tudelft.nl
Student: J. van Essen Assignment type: Literature

Supervisor (TUD): W. van den Bos (TU Creditpoints (EC): 12
Delft)
Supervisor (Company) L. van Adrichem Specialization: TEL
(Temporary Works
Design)
Report number: 2013.TL.7807
Confidential: Yes
Subject: Operational window for touchdown of jack-up barges
Jack -up barges are barges equipped with legs that are able to jack themselves out of the water.
When jacked, a stable work platform is available and operation is not influenced by wave motion.
Jack-ups can be used as working platform for, among other utilities, installation and servicing
structures such as: offshore wind turbines, long bridges, and drilling platforms.
The legs and a jacking system are used to lift the barge out of the water. Jacking up a barge is a
dangerous operation, especially during the transition phase between floating and standing on the legs.
During this phase there will be a repeated impact between the leg and the seabed when the barge
follows the wave motions. The workability of the barge is limited by the allowable magnitude of the
impact.
This literature assignment is to study and make an overview of the parameters influencing the impact
magnitude and make an overview of existing measures to improve workability of jack-ups. The
research in this assignment should cover the following:
• An overview of jack-up types (e.g. sizes, weights, jack-up systems);

• An overview of parameters (and range) influencing the impact magnitude;
• International Standards and Codes concerning leg impact for jack-up barges;
• Jack-up leg impact calculation
• Patented systems reducing leg impact;
The supervisor,
ir. W. van den Bos.

2013.TEL.7807
Summary
Jack-up barges are barges equipped with legs that are able to jack themselves out of the water. When
jacked, a stable work platform is available and operation is not influenced by wave motion. Jack ups
can be used as working platform for, among other utilities, installation and servicing structures such
as offshore wind turbines, long bridges, and drilling platforms.
The legs and a jacking system are used to lift the barge out of the water. Jacking up a barge is a
dangerous operation, especially during the transition phase between floating and standing on the legs.
During this phase there will be a repeated impact between the leg and the seabed when the barge
follows the wave motions. The workability of the barge is limited by the allowable magnitude of the
impact.
The impact of the leg during touch down depends on the vessel specifications and environmental
parameters. Jack-ups are present in a large variety of size and shape. Two main groups were
distinguished. Flat barge type and jack-ups with the shape of a vessel. The barge type is often not
self-propelled while the vessel type often is self-propelled and equipped with dynamic positioning
system. The length of barge types ranges from 30 to 100 m. Ship type has range in length of 90 to
160 m. The barge type jack-ups are usually built for shallower water, up to 45 m, while the ship type
is used in water to 80 m depth.
Several leg types are used with jack-ups; cylindrical legs, square tubular legs, and lattice legs. The
lattice legs are often used for larger water depth. The length of the leg determines the operating
depth which is important in the calculation of the impact load.
Jacking of the units can be achieved in several ways. Two types are most common: rack and pinion
and pin-hole. The first is by use of hydraulic jacks and the second uses electric motors driving the
pinion over racks along the legs. The jacking system has lower influence on the impact load but
determines the possibility of a leg impact reducing device.
Besides dimensions of jack-ups, environmental conditions are important to determine the impact load.
Maximum operating conditions are prescribed in specifications sheets for each vessel. It often
concerns the maximum significant wave height. The corresponding wave period is often not provided
but is important for determining the impact load. Another important parameter which is not prescribed
is the seabed condition. Soft clay results in much lower reaction loads than dense sand and hard clay.
Some classification societies provide calculation method for the impact load. Of all the members the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) only three provide a method. They all
provide more or less the same method. There are some difference in presentation, but the principles
are the same. The three societies are: Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas and Russian Maritime
Register of Shipping.
The DNV calculation method was used to perform calculations to determine leg impact for the range
of jack-ups concerned in this research. Impact loads were calculated and compared for three
situations. The first was according to prescribed allowable operating conditions. The second was
calculated to determine the effect of a shock absorber. And the third calculation was to compare
higher wave conditions, which represented a larger weather window, with allowable values when a
shock absorber was used. The impact loads for lattice legs were different from tubular legs. Loads
were higher and the shock absorber had less effect than for tubular legs. The conclusion for all jack-
ups was that adding only a small damping stroke resulted in large allowable wave conditions.
The calculation was simplified on vessel motion and leg specifications. This means that for accurate
load values more detailed information should be used.
In the past several patented designs were made to reduce the leg impact load during installation of
jack-ups. Designs consider shock absorbing at location of the jack house or at the bottom of a jack-up
leg. Designs for the leg bottom often use compressive members, while designs for jack housing often
use compressible gas or hydraulics to reduce the shock.
Although there exist several patented designs for shock absorbing devices for jack-up legs, no
information was found about actual applied devices on the selection of jack-ups.
3
2013.TEL.7807
List of symbols
Symbol Description Unit
θroll Roll angle [º]
T Roll period [s]
Pv Vertical impact force [MN]
PH Horizontal impact force [MN]
EK Kinetic energy [MNm]
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation Description Unit
DNV Det Norske Veritas [-]
JUB Jack-Up Barge [-]
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit [-]
SWH Significant Wave Height [m]
WTIV Wind Turbine Installation vessel [-]
4
2013.TEL.7807
Contents
Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
List of symbols .............................................................................................................................. 4
List of abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 General introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Goal of the research ........................................................................................................ 7
1.3 Report structure.............................................................................................................. 7
2 Jack-up specifications ............................................................................................................. 8
3 Parameters and range ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Hull shapes ..................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Sizes ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Operating depth............................................................................................................ 13
3.4 Jack-up legs ................................................................................................................. 14
3.5 Jacking systems ............................................................................................................ 16
3.6 Environmental parameters ............................................................................................. 20
4 Standards and Codes ............................................................................................................ 21
4.1 International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) ............................................... 21
4.2 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [1.3], [2.3] .............................................................. 22
4.3 Bureau Veritas [3.3] ...................................................................................................... 22
4.4 China Classification Society [4.3].................................................................................... 22
4.5 Det Norske Veritas [5.3] ................................................................................................ 23
4.6 Germanischer Lloyd [6.3] .............................................................................................. 24
4.7 Korean Register of Shipping [7.3] .................................................................................. 24
4.8 Lloyd's Register of Shipping [8.3] ................................................................................... 24
4.9 Nippon Kaiji Kyokai [9.3] ............................................................................................... 24
4.10 Registro Italiano Navale [10.3] ...................................................................................... 24
4.11 Russian Maritime Register of Shipping [11.3] .................................................................. 25
4.12 Indian Register of Shipping [12.3] ................................................................................. 25
4.13 Croatian Register of Shipping ......................................................................................... 25
4.14 Polish Register of Shipping ............................................................................................ 25
4.15 Observations from codes and standards ......................................................................... 26
5 Load impact calculation ........................................................................................................ 27
5.1 Method......................................................................................................................... 27
5.2 Assumptions ................................................................................................................. 27
5.3 Calculation results ......................................................................................................... 28
5.4 Calculation conclusion ................................................................................................... 30
6 Patents for jack-up leg shock absorber .................................................................................. 31
6.1 Fast jack lift boat shock absorbing jacking system........................................................... 32
6.2 Load equalizing and shock absorber system for off-shore drilling rigs ............................... 33
6.3 Offshore drilling platform with vertically movable legs ..................................................... 34
6.4 Shock absorbing structure and method for off shore jack-up rigs ..................................... 35
6.5 Device for absorbing impacts during lowering or lifting respectively of the support legs of an
artificial island .......................................................................................................................... 36
6.6 Load transfer and monitoring system for use with jack-up barges .................................... 37
6.7 Shock absorber and method for offshore jack-up rigs ...................................................... 38
6.8 Device for the integrated suspension and manipulation of the legs of a jack-up platform... 39
6.9 Device for sitting on the seabed for self-raising sea vessels ............................................. 40
7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 41
8 References ........................................................................................................................... 42
8.1 General literature .......................................................................................................... 42
8.2 Research papers ........................................................................................................... 42
8.3 Standards and Codes .................................................................................................... 42
8.4 Jack-up specifications .................................................................................................... 43
8.5 Patents......................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix A: Calculations .............................................................................................................. 44
Appendix B: Jack-up unit specification sheets ................................................................................ 45
5
2013.TEL.7807
1 Introduction
1.1 General introduction

Jack-up barges are working platforms generally used at sea. They are used to perform operations like
wind turbine installation or oil drilling. The platforms have retractable legs and can lift themselves out
of the water. That provides a stable working platform without influence of sea motion. Different
operating modes of a jack-up are presented below.
Figure 1-1, Different operating modes for a jack-up [3.1]
All of the jack-up types are designed for operation in locations with wave motion. When positioning or
removing a jack-up on or from its location, the legs are lowered while the jack-ups motion is
influenced by the waves. This causes impact between the legs and the seabed during touchdown.
This happens between the modes ‘lowering legs’ and ‘coming out of the water’ in figure 1.1.
The possibility to install or remove a jack-up is limited by the sea state. The amount of time the
weather or sea state allows safe operation is known as weather window. Of course, it is desired to
have a weather window as large as possible.
6
2013.TEL.7807
1.2 Goal of the research

Goal of this research is to survey of what determines the operational window of installing a jack-up
unit. The focus is on the leg impact during touchdown. Furthermore, this research should result in an
overview of what information is necessary to design a jack-up leg shock absorber, which then
improves the workability.
1.3 Report structure

The report is setup in 7 main chapters. First, an introduction is made into several jack-up types. Its
main components are discussed and the several types of jack-ups are distinguished. An overview is
given of specifications of a set of jack-ups built in the last decade. This shows in what parameters
jack-ups differ and in what range. These parameters are discussed in chapter 3. To find rules for
determination of leg impact research was done on several standards and codes. The results of this
search can be found chapter 4. As a result, a calculation sample was performed with use of the codes
from chapter 4. The calculation and results are described in chapter 5. In the past, several designs
were patented that provide leg impact reduction. Results of a patent search and description of the
patents can be found in chapter 6. The last chapter contains conclusions of this report. References
used for this report can be found in the section after the conclusion. Through the report references
are presented as [x.x]. Calculations and detailed specifications on a selection of jack-ups can be found
in the appendices.
7
2013.TEL.7807
2 Jack-up specifications
To start this research first a survey is made of existing jack-up units. It resulted in what type and size
of jack-ups are used nowadays. A selection is made of several jack-ups built in the last decade. This
selection should only represent the variety in jack-ups instead of presenting a complete overview of all
jack-ups. The selection is used throughout the report to determine and discuss subjects concerning
the leg impact during touch-down.
Two main differences were identified. A platform can be specially made as working platform. Then it is
often called a jack-up barge or rig. When the hull shape is like the shape of a regular vessel it is often
called a jack-up vessel. The latter have a second important function of transport besides the function
as working platform. The vessel types are often used for wind turbine transport and installation.
The following table presents the selection of jack-ups with specifications. The upper half presents the
barge type jack-ups and lower half the vessel type. This distinction is used more often in this report.
Table 2.1
Name Length Width Legs Leg Type Leg length Max Year
(m) (m) (m) Operating built
depth (m)
Barges:
JB104 30.5 17.1 4 Cylinder 47.4 25 n/a
Pauline (SEA 900) 48 25 4 Cylinder 50 30 2002
JB114 (SEA 200) 55.5 32.2 4 Cylinder 73.15 40 2009
JB117 (SEA3250) 75.9 40 4 Cylinder 80 45 2012
Square
Sea Jack 95 33 4 50.4 30 2003
Tube
Ships:
Square
Sea Energy 91.7 21.6 4 32 24 2002
tube
3 Chord
Nora 105 50 4 130 80 2011
lattice
Square
MPI Resolution 130 38 6 71.8 35 2003
lattice
3 Chord
Seafox 5 151 50 4 106 65 2012
lattice
3 Chord
Pacific Orca 160 49 6 105 75 2012
lattice
Separate jack-up specifications with figures can be found in the appendix. For more information is
referred to reference section 4.
8
2013.TEL.7807
3 Parameters and range

This chapter discusses the parameters and range of specifications of jack-ups based on the selection
in section 2.1. The parameters are selected on their influence on the jacking operation.
3.1 Hull shapes

The family of jack-up units consists of floating platforms and vessels. Both can elevate themselves out
of the water by standing on their own legs. The three main groups can be considered as:
• Drilling platforms
• Jack-up barges
• Vessels with jacking capabilities
The difference is noticeable by their hull shape and movability.
Drilling platforms
The first group, jack-up drilling units, are often built as a triangular barge with three legs. One of the
three barge corners is shaped similar to a ship’s bow. Triangular drilling units are normally not self-
propelled and require tow boats to move to their destination.
Figure 3-1, Triangular three legged jack-up drilling unit, GustoMSC type CJ46-X100-D [1.4]
9
2013.TEL.7807
Barges
The second group, jack-up barges, or self-elevating platforms, are normally rectangular flat barges
with legs at the corner points. Jack-up barges are often not self-propelled and therefore need to be
towed. However, there do exist examples with own propulsion systems. This is an advantage, because
in case of daily moves self-propulsion results in lower costs compared to the use of tugboats.
Figure 3-2, Four legged multipurpose self-elevating unit, GustoMSC type SEA-3250 [2.4]
Vessels
Finally, jack-up vessels often have a bow of a cargo ship and are equipped with movable legs. Jack-up
vessels are self-propelled. And in addition to that they are often equipped with dynamic positioning
systems. This also saves additional tugs for the vessel to maintain its stationary position.
Sizes depend, amongst others, on their afloat and elevated load carrying capabilities [3.1].
Figure 3-3, Six legged Wind farm Installation Vessel, Pacific Orca [3.4]
This report will further on focus on the last two types of jack-ups. Reason for this is that it is expected
those will have more frequent moves in their lifetime. In that case leg impact is more important
because it occurs more often than for the drilling rigs, which stay for long time at one position.
10
2013.TEL.7807
3.2 Sizes
The following figures show the difference in platform dimensions, see figure 2-1 for top view of
barges and figure 2-2 for vessels.
Figure 3-4, Top view of jack-up barges (above) and jack-up vessels (below) size range
The barge type jack-ups are usually used for service operations. Oil drilling and maintenance on oil
rigs used to be the main operations. In the last decade installation of wind farm has become a more
important occupation for the jack-ups.
11
2013.TEL.7807
Figure 3-5, Top view of jack-up vessels size range
The figures above show the shortest vessel types are almost as long as the largest barge type. The
ship type jack-ups are often used for transport of large off shore structures like wind turbines. The
extra space required for transport explains why the ship types are larger, as shown in the following
figure. Besides transport they can at least fulfil the same operation as the barge types. The trend in
jack-up design is increasing the size and offer larger operating depth. The latest jack-up vessels are
equipped with longer legs and larger cranes.
12
2013.TEL.7807
3.3 Operating depth

Another important specification, next to size, is the operating depth. The figures below show the
different operating depths for the concerned jack-ups. The distinction between barges and vessels in
the overview of the dimensions was also applied here.
Figure 3-6, Front view of jack-up barges (above) and jack-up vessels (below) range of operating depth
The figures above show that vessel type jack-up units have a maximum operating depth up to twice
as large as the operating depth of barge type jack-ups. The newer ship type are built to be more
versatile than the barge type jack-ups.
13
2013.TEL.7807
3.4 Jack-up legs

The legs can differ in number and in shape. For different operation conditions a different type of jack-
up leg can be used. For certain seabed types, often soft, an additional footing is necessary at the
bottom of the legs to avoid too much leg penetration. The leg differences are described below.
Leg shape
A survey of jack-up specifications shows two leg shapes are commonly used for jack-up units. Long
legs, for use in deep waters of more than 90 m [3.1], often used on drilling units, consist of lattice
structures. lattice legs often have three chords and bracings between the chords. For shallow water or
lower loads, cylindrical shaped legs can be used, which require less deck space and are less
complicated than lattice legs to fabricate. Other leg shapes present are square tubes. Typical leg
shape designs as shown in figure 3-4.
Figure 3-7, Different leg type sections for jack-ups, from DNV-RP-C104 [5.3]
Number of legs
During design of jack-up units the number of legs is considered. Jack-up drilling rigs, with their
triangular shape, usually have three legs (see figure 4-1). Jack-up barges and vessels normally have
four legs (figure 4-2) and large jack-up vessels often have six legs (figure 4-3). Special jack-up units
may contain even eight legs [4.4].
More legs increase safety due to redundancy. More legs also increase the preload speed. Preloading is
simulating the maximum expected load on each leg to ensure the soil has enough strength to bear the
loads of the platform. Preloading is normally performed by ballasting the unit with water. With more
than three legs, the preloading can be performed by fully loading two legs and slightly raising the
remaining legs, without compromising stability. This requires less time than ballasting. However,
increasing the number of legs also increases drag of protruding legs during transit and increases the
weight of the total unit. The latter has the consequence of reducing the cargo capacity. Furthermore,
with more raised legs, the center of gravity is higher and more wind area is present.
14
2013.TEL.7807
Leg length and operating depth (m)

Leg length differs from 50 to 80 m for barges. For self-elevating vessels this is higher; 70 to 130 m.
The difference between operating depth and leg length for barges has an average of 25 m while for
the ships this is 40 m. Although the ships can have longer legs, the operating depth does not increase
equivalently. The leg shape for barges is usually a cylinder shape, while for the ships it is a lattice.
Tables 1 and 2 show that operating depth can be increased by increasing the leg length, but also
requires using lattice legs instead of cylinder shape. The type of jacking system shows that cylindrical
shaped legs are often driven by hydraulic pin-hole systems. Lattice legs are driven by rack and pinion.
This shows that the extra length of the lattice legs is result of the space required by the rack and
pinion jacking systems.
Footings
Jack-up legs are often provided with footings. When the jack-up is being installed in relatively soft soil
the legs can penetrate several meters. The footings reduce this and provide a stable foundation.
A footing can be one large structure, a mat, at the bottom connected to all of the legs. Another
common type is a footing structure for each leg separately, known as spud cans. These provide load
spreading of the leg when in contact with the soil.
Figure 3-8, Different footings for jack-ups; mat footing (left) and spud can (right). [3.1]
15
2013.TEL.7807
3.5 Jacking systems

Jacking systems are used to lower and raise the legs and lift and lower the jack-up platform out of the
water. For all present jack-ups each leg has its own jacking system. Jacking systems are present in
variable configurations. Application of a certain jacking system depends on the capabilities of the jack-
up where it is installed. The system determines, amongst others:
The jacking capacity and therefore the cargo capacity
The jacking style
The jacking speed
The allowable jacking conditions
The following table presents the different jacking systems and specifications for the selection of jack-
ups.
Table 3. 1
Name Jacking Jack Jack Jack Jacking SWH

system Capacity speed stroke (m)/
(mT/leg) (m/h) (m) period (s)
JB104 Pin Hole 400 15 1.5 1.5**

SEA 900, Pauline Pin Hole 900 n/a n/a 1.5**
SAE 2000 JB114 Pin Hole 1250 39 1.7 1.5**
JB117 Pin Hole 2250 15 n/a 1.5**
Sea Jack Wire winch 2500 48 n/a 1.5
Sea Energy Wire winch n/a 42 n/a 1.5**

Nora Rack & Pinion 1800* 27 n/a 2.0
MPI Resolution Hydraulic brace 2850 30 n/a 3.0/18
Seafox 5 Rack & pinion 1750* 60 n/a 2.0/ 6
Pacific Orca Rack & pinion 1400* 72 n/a 2.5
* based on deck capacity.
** based on common practice.
Two common basic jacking systems are: “rack and pinion” and hydraulic “pin and hole” [3.1]. Less
common are use of “hydraulic brace”, “pneumatic grippers”, and use of “wire and winch”.
The jacking system can be continuous or discontinuous. Rack and pinion and winch systems are
continuous. “Pin in the hole” systems usually are discontinuous because of discrete jacking.
The selection of jack ups shows that the units with cylindrical legs are provided with the pin-hole
system while the lattice legs are provided with rack and pinions. For some jack-ups with cylindrical
legs the rack and pinion system is used.
The relationship between legs and jacking system depends on the leg length possibly. Longer legs are
often lattice legs. The longer the legs the more time it takes to jack. As rack and pinion is usually a
quicker jacking method, this will be used for the longer leg types. The jacking systems will be shortly
discussed below.
16
2013.TEL.7807
Rack and pinion

Rack and pinion consists of teeth racks along the legs. In case of lattice legs the rack is applied at one
or more chords. Usually each chord is provided with two racks opposite of each other. Two opposed
racks are preferable to use over one rack per chord. When one rack is used it is in radial position of
the leg. This results in additional horizontal load on the leg, while two opposed racks cancel out each
other’s horizontal load [3.1]. In case of cylindrical legs also two racks opposite of each other are used.
The jacking system is fixed to the hull, usually fitted in housings. On the inside a set of pinion drives is
located.
Figure 3-9, Schematic arrangement of rack and pinion elevating system. [3.3]
The pinion can be driven by hydraulics or by electric motor. Usually more than one set of pinion drives
is used above each other.
Figure 3-10, Example of pinion drive system. [5.4]
17
2013.TEL.7807
Pin hole jacking system

The second common used elevating system is the “pin in the hole” system. Its name literally explains
its principle. The legs are provided with holes over longitudinal intervals. The jacking systems are
provided with pins. Pointing the pins into the legs and activate hydraulic jacks connected to the pin
results in moving the legs. The limited jack stroke is repeated until the barge is elevated to the
required height. This jacking method has been transformed from discrete jacking to continuous
jacking. This is developed by the company MSC-Gusto [6.4]. It results in a relatively fast and high
capacity jacking system.
Figure 3-11, Schematic arrangement pinhole system. [3.3]
Hydraulic brace
Less common jacking system, the hydraulic brace, works similar to the “pin hole” principle. It uses
hydraulic jacks, but instead of pins through holes in the legs, a brace can be fixed on the exterior of
the toothed leg.
Figure 3-12, Toothed square tube leg from MPI Resolution. [7.4]
18
2013.TEL.7807
Hydraulic gripper
Similar to the hydraulic brace is the hydraulic gripper. It consists of inflatable rubber grippers on the
circumference of a tubular leg. The grippers are connected by a set of single and double working
pneumatic jacks. They work in discrete steps as with standard hydraulic jacking systems. This system
is mounted on the Titan jack-ups Karlissa A and B [8.4].
Figure 3-13, Schematic arrangement hydraulic grippers. [3.3]
Wire and winch

Another less common jacking system mentioned, “wire and winch”, uses wires and winched for lifting
and lowering the platform. It is a relatively fast manner for continuous jacking. Disadvantage is the
required wire length for large water depth. A wire and winch system is mounted on the jack-up Sea
Energy [11.4] mentioned in chapter 2.
19
2013.TEL.7807
3.6 Environmental parameters

The only environmental parameter that has influence on the impact load of the leg with the seabed is
the condition of the seabed itself.
A research was performed to describe objectives and proposed approach for a joint industry study. It
investigated the problems associated with jack-ups manoeuvring on and off location [2.2]. Part of the
research considered seabed reactions. The considered seabed characteristics were as follows:
Figure 3-14, Soil characteristics according to [2.2].
Where φ is the angle of internal friction and c is the undrained shear strength in kN/m2. The density of
both soils was taken as 1 t/m3.
For a certain jack-up barge calculations were performed by use of finite element (FE) analysis and an
analytical method. Results are shown below. It shows the difference of the seabed conditions on the
impact loads. C is the FE analysis and A the analytical analysis.
Figure 3-15, Axial force in legs for different sea bed, according to [2.2].
The graph shows that only soft clay seabed results in low axial force. Dense sand and hard clay result
in similar results except that dense sand results in bouncing effect, as shown in the timespan between
1.5s and 2s.
This shows that seabed condition has great influence on the leg impact load during touchdown.
20
2013.TEL.7807
4 Standards and Codes

The previous chapters described several jack-ups and their specifications. The information can be
used to determine the impact load of the leg with seabed. The next step is to determine how to
calculate this. Classification societies provide rules and guidelines for designing and classifying ships.
This chapter has as goal to provide rules and calculation methods concerning leg impact.
4.1 International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)

The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) is the covering institution for the 13
most important classification bureaus worldwide. The current associates of the IACS are:
• American Bureau of Shipping

• Bureau Veritas
• China Classification Society
• Det Norske Veritas
• Germanischer Lloyd
• Korean Register of Shipping
• Lloyd's Register of Shipping
• Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
• Registro Italiano Navale
• Russian Maritime Register of Shipping
• Indian Register of Shipping
• Croatian Register of Shipping
• Polish Register of Shipping
This group of societies was reviewed to determine if and what rules are available for calculating the
leg impact during touch down.
The following sections mention the rules of each classification bureau which were found and searched
for jack-up leg impact. Behind each name of the associate a reference number is given. Reference
information on the specific rules, if available, can be found in reference section 3 at the end of this
report.
21
2013.TEL.7807
4.2 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [1.3], [2.3]

• Liftboat Guide:
Part 4, chapter 4: no specific rules about jacking impact
• Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit MODU Guide: chapter 2, section 3. no specific rules found
about jacking impact
4.3 Bureau Veritas [3.3]

• NI 534 - Guidance Note for the Classification of Self-Elevating Units:
Section 6, par 4:
4.4 China Classification Society [4.3]

• Rule for classification of sea-going steel ships:
Does not mention jack-ups/self-elevating platforms.
22
2013.TEL.7807
4.5 Det Norske Veritas [5.3]

• Recommended practice: DNV-RP-C104; Self-elevating Units, November 2012: section 4.6
Global analysis for the installation and retrieval conditions:
“Normally the impact force may be assumed to be governed by rolling and pitching except for
platforms with roll and pitch damping devices.”
“The rotational energy of the jack-up must then be absorbed by the leg and the porting structure at
the barge. The impact force may be given as:
23
2013.TEL.7807
4.6 Germanischer Lloyd [6.3]

Only described by:
Rules for Classification and Construction IV Industrial Services, 6 Offshore Technology, 2 Mobile
Offshore Units, section 2, B, 4.3.4; Condition while lowering legs:
“The maximum design motions, water depth, bottom conditions and sea state while lowering legs are
to be clearly indicated in the Operating Manual, and the legs are not to be permitted to touch bottom
when the site conditions exceed the allowable.”
4.7 Korean Register of Shipping [7.3]

No specific rules on leg impact found in: GUIDANCE FOR MOBILE OFFSHORE DRILLING UNITS
4.8 Lloyd's Register of Shipping [8.3]

Rules on leg strength for installation conditions:
Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Mobile Offshore Units, June 2013. Part 4, Chapter 4,
section 3.12: Legs during installation conditions:
“When lowering the legs to the sea bed, the legs are to be designed to withstand the dynamic loads
which may be encountered by their unsupported length just prior to touching the sea bed and also to
withstand the shock of touching bottom while the unit is afloat and subject to wave motions.”
4.9 Nippon Kaiji Kyokai [9.3]

Rules for the Survey and Construction of Steel Ships / Guidance. Part P MOBILE OFFSHORE DRILLING
UNITS AND SPECIAL PURPOSE BARGES. Section 7.4.2:
“Legs are to be designed to withstand the dynamic loads which may be encountered by their
unsupported length just prior to touching bottom, and also to withstand the shock of touching seabed
while the unit is afloat and subject to wave motions.”
4.10 Registro Italiano Navale [10.3]

Rules for the Classification of Floating Offshore Units at Fixed Locations and Mobile Offshore Drilling
Units, Effective from 1 January 2012. Part E, chapter 4, section 2, 7.3.3:
“Legs are to be designed to withstand the dynamic loads which may be encountered by their
unsupported length while being lowered to the bottom, and also to withstand the shock of bottom
contact due to wave action on the hull.”
24
2013.TEL.7807
4.11 Russian Maritime Register of Shipping [11.3]

Rules for the Classification, Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units and Fixed
Offshore Platforms, 2012. Part II Hull, section 3.1.10. Leg pounding against seabed during self-
elevating MODU positioning at a site.
“During preloading and pulling out the leg may be subjected to pounding against seabed, caused by
the unit rolling.
Pounding force caused by rolling may be determined by the simplified method based on the following:
only one leg touches seabed;
the lower end of the leg comes to a stop immediately upon touching seabed;
seabed is extremely hard.
The unit rotation energy is absorbed by the leg structure that gives the pounding force P:
The result will depend on wave condition intensity and waterarea depth. The maximum permissible
pounding force may be determined on the basis of strength criterion. The maximum permissible
amplitude of rolling and pitching during preloading and pulling out shall be as follows:
."
4.12 Indian Register of Shipping [12.3]

Rules and Regulations for the Construction and Classification of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, January
2013. Chapter 7, section 2.2.5:
“Condition - while lowering to bottom: Legs are to be designed to withstand the dynamic loads which
may be encountered by their unsupported length just prior to touching bottom, and also to withstand
the shock of touching bottom while the unit is afloat and subject to wave and wind motions.”
4.13 Croatian Register of Shipping

No rules available for Jack-ups/MODU’s/Self-Elevating Vessels
4.14 Polish Register of Shipping

No rules available for Jack-ups/MODU’s/Self-Elevating Vessels
25
2013.TEL.7807
4.15 Observations from codes and standards

Only three classification bureaus provide calculation methods for the leg impact. The other associates
only say that the impact should be considered, but not exactly how. China, Croatia and Poland do not
specify any rules considering jack-up units.
Bureau Veritas [3.3] and DNV [5.3] provide similar design recommendations of main structures for
self-elevating units. For installation and retrieval of a jack-up unit they present a simplified method to
determine impact force on the legs due to roll or pitch motion. Heave motion is not included in the
analysis. The motion values can be determined by motion analysis software for a certain barge and its
loading condition. The method is based on three conservative assumptions:
• Only one leg touches the bottom.
• The lower end of the leg is stopped immediately when the leg touches the bottom.
• The bottom is infinitely rigid. (worst case).
The principle of the calculation is that the kinetic energy of the structure at impact is equal to work of
the reaction force at the bottom of the leg.
26
2013.TEL.7807
5 Load impact calculation

The previous chapters provide data and calculation methods which can be used to determine the leg
impact load. The information was used to perform a simplified load impact calculation for this report.
The goal was to determine what order of magnitude the loads are. The calculation can be found in
Appendix A.
5.1 Method
The calculation is according to the DNV recommended practice mentioned in chapter 4. From all the
rules this provided the method with most detail for calculation. First the load was calculated for a non-
damped impact. This was done for the selection of jack-up barges and vessels mentioned in chapter
2. In addition, a calculation was performed to determine the influence of a shock absorber.
By combining the non-damped impact load with a certain amount of damping stroke the damping
energy was found. Assumed is that this amount of energy is equal to the kinetic energy of the jack-up
in roll motion. The allowable kinetic energy with use of a shock absorber was compared to kinetic
energy from motion with higher roll angles. The higher roll angle was a result of increased wave
height. That is the result of the calculation. It shows that increased wave height results in allowable
loads when a shock absorber is used on the leg.
5.2 Assumptions
As is described in the calculation of DNV three main assumptions are made:
• Only one leg touches the bottom.
• The lower end of the leg is stopped immediately when the leg touches the bottom.
• The bottom is infinitely rigid. (Worst case).
Roll motion
Only roll motion was considered for this case as loads for this motion are usually governing over pitch
motion. Roll angles are determined by comparing the width of a ship and its allowable significant
wave height for jacking, called SHW (m). Roll periods, T(s), are based on allowable jacking conditions
as specified in the spec-sheets for the jack-ups. As for most jack-ups no information was available, a
simple assumption was done based on the size of the vessel.
Significant wave height

Research was performed on severity on several locations in the North-Sea [3.2]. It supplies statistics
about monthly significant wave heights, SWH, between the years 1974 and 1995. This information
was used to determine a mean significant wave height over several years. The chosen location was
Forties oil field. This showed data covering a possible working location for the considered jack-ups in
this research. The data is shown below.
Figure 5-1, Weather window for jack-ups.
27
2013.TEL.7807
In the selection of jack-ups half of the group can only be installed with a maximum SWH of 1.5 m.
That means they could only operate between May and August. To improve the possible operating
period assumed is that an addition of 1 m to the SWH would be preferable.
Exact data necessary for the calculation was not available for all jack-ups. Therefore, instead of exact
impact loads, the results only show the order of magnitude and the influence of adding a shock
absorber.
5.3 Calculation results

The impact calculation resulted in loads at the bottom of the jack-up leg. Vertical loads as well as
horizontal loads were calculated.
The first part of the calculation was based on standard conditions. No shock absorber was applied and
the normal significant wave heigth was used as input.
Standard conditions
Compared to the vertical load, the horizontal load is low. This means that axial force is governing over
shear force. The horizontal load diagram below shows large difference between the loads from three
vessels: Nora, the Seafox 5 and the Pacific Orca and the others. The main difference between the
vessels is that the ones with high horizontal load have long lattice legs. While the others have tubular
legs. In the calculation the ratio between lateral and axial stiffness is much smaller than the lattice
legs. This could cause the difference in horizontal loads.
Figure 5-2, Horizontal impact loads.
The vertical impact loads show expected results. The larger the ship, the larger the impact will be.
Figure 5-3, Vertical impact loads.
28
2013.TEL.7807
Besides the impact load also the static load was calculated. The static load was based on the
maximum ships weight divided over half the number of legs of each jack-up. Assumed is that during
preloading of a jack-up all the weight of the ship is supported by half the number of legs. The ratio
between the dynamic load and static load is considered as a dynamic factor. It is presented below.
Figure 5-4, Dynamic factor for vertical impact loads.
The graph shows that the smaller and barge type jack-ups have higher dynamic factors than the
largers jack-ups. The vessel type jack-ups have similar factors.
Effect of shock absorber

The following results show the effect of adding a shock absorber at the bottom of the leg. The shock
absorber was assumed to provide constant deceleration. The stroke of the absorber was equal for all
jack-ups. Iteratively it was determined that a stroke of 0.2 m provided enough energy dissipation to
reduce the load significantly.
The results show a similar course to the results of the horizontal loads without shock absorber. Again
the long and lattice legs are distinct. The shock absorber has less effect on the lattice legs. Although
the effect is less than for tubular legs, it stilldecreases the load to approximately 30 %.
Figure 5-5, Ratio damped to non-damped vertical impact load.
29
2013.TEL.7807
Increasing significant wave height

The effect of adding a shock absorber is that the allowable kinetic energy, developed by the jack-up
during roll motion, can be increased. The impact load was calculated for the wave conditions
according to the assumptions in section 5.2. The developed kinetic energy was compared to the
allowable kinetic energy when a shock absorber is used. The results are presented in the graph below.
Figure 5-6, Ratio kinetic energy to allowable kinetic energy.
The graph shows that even with an increase of 1 m to the allowable significant wave height the shock
absorber with a stroke of 0.2 m is sufficient. Loads are then at 10 to 50 % of what is allowed.
5.4 Calculation conclusion

For the barges it is clear there is an improvement possible. A shock absorber stroke of 0.2 m shows
much higher allowable significant wave height. The calculation was performed for hard seabed
conditions. A shock absorber for soft seabed conditions might not be necessary. That can be
concluded when the assumption is made that soft sea bed acts as a similar shock absorber used in
this calculation, and the jack-up legs penetrate at least 0.2 m during impact.
The results for the vessels with lattice are different from the tubular leg jack-ups. The impact loads
are higher and the reduction due to shock absorber is less. Possibly the assumptions made in the
calculation need to be improved. For exact values of impact loads a more detailed approach is
necessary for each jack-up. Especially barge motion, leg dimensions and connection stiffness between
legs and hull is required to get useful results.
30
2013.TEL.7807
6 Patents for jack-up leg shock absorber

Jack-up leg impact has been a problem since several decades. Since the 1970s patented designs were
made for a device which should reduce this impact. The following sections describe nine patented
designs for jack-up leg shock absorbers. An abstract is given from each patent with figures and
followed by some keywords important for that particular design. Some patents are provided with
detailed designs, while others only describe the concept.
The designs have a wide range of approach of the problem. Some devices are mounted at the bottom
of the leg while others absorb shocks at location of the jacking houses. Some designs use
compression of fluids and others use compression of elastic material.
The designs can be distinguished in three levels:
1. The first level shows difference in location of the device. Two options are possible: at leg
bottom, and at jack housing.
2. The second level differs in jacking type. For leg bottom devices no difference is made for this,
as the jacking system does not affect the leg bottom. A difference is recognized for several
leg types. However, all the considered designs for leg bottom can be adapted to tubular and
lattice legs.
3. The third level shows difference in shock absorbing. This is often compression of gas or
compression of elastic members.
Al the possibilities for each level are shown in the following diagram.
Figure 6-1, Design differences for patented impact reducers.
The diagram shows that more or less half of designs are focused on the leg bottom and the other half
on jacking systems. Furthermore, for the devices at the jacking system the focus is on the rack and
pinion. An explanation could be that rack and pinion was mostly used at time of the inventions.
Another explanation could be that rack and pinion systems are more vulnerable than hydraulic pin
hole jacking.
31
2013.TEL.7807
6.1 Fast jack lift boat shock absorbing jacking system

Date of patent: June 10, 2010. Juan, Lizarraga J. [1.5]
Abstract:
A shock absorbing device and system for the jacking system of a liftboat with air or cylinder chambers
and manual and pressure activated control valves connecting the shock absorbing system to the
hydraulic manifold of the jacking system allowing isolation or activation of the shock absorbing
system. The shock absorbing system can be retrofitted to an existing jacking system. The shock
absorbing device and system cushions the vessels impact with the seabed while jacking in rough seas,
reducing structural fatigue and damage to the hull and jacking system. In addition, the shock
absorbing device and system can broaden the liftboat's operational envelope and allow it to operate in
rougher conditions without damage to the vessel.
Keywords:
Normal limit, 4 to 5 ft. sea, wave period, 6 to 10 sec.
Compressible gas
Addition of air chamber to jacking system
More complex: isolate gas from fluid in jacking system
Valve
Easily retrofitted
Figure 6-2, Schematic view of air chamber configuration.
32
2013.TEL.7807
6.2 Load equalizing and shock absorber system for off-shore

drilling rigs
Date of patent: Oct. 19, 1976. Levingston Shipbuilding Company (Orange, TX). [2.5]
Abstract:
A load equalizing system for a jack-up leg on a mobile off-shore drilling platform barge, wherein the
leg has a plurality of rigidly interconnected generally parallel chords. Each of the chords is connected
to the barge by a rack and pinion type jack assembly arranged for raising and lowering the leg relative
to the platform and wherein lateral deflection of the leg by wave action or the like causes the chords
to move vertically unequally relative to the barge. The improvement comprises a pair of hydraulic
cylinder assemblies mounted between each of the jack assemblies and the barge, with the working
axes thereof generally parallel with the longitudinal axis of the leg. Each cylinder assembly has a
cylinder piston mounted therein and a piston rod connected to the piston and extending longitudinally
therefrom. Each of the hydraulic cylinder assemblies has one end connected to the barge and the
other end arranged for vertical bearing against the top of one of the jack assemblies. Conduit means
are provided for interconnecting the fluid containing ends of the cylinders for permitting hydraulic fluid
to be transmitted there between. Means are also provided for charging hydraulic cylinders with at
least sufficient hydraulic fluid to maintain the piston rods at about mid-stroke, whereby unequal
vertical loads on the chords are reduced by equalization of hydraulic pressure in the cylinders through
the conduit means. In the shock absorbing mode, the system includes a plurality of
accumulators, each of which is arranged for containing a quantity of gas. Second conduit
means are arranged for interconnecting the cylinders with the accumulators. Means are also provided
for pressurizing the accumulators with gas whereby shock force exerted on the leg, as would be
caused by heaving of the barge during raising and lowering of the leg, are absorbed by displacement
of hydraulic fluid from the cylinder to the accumulators and compression of the gas therein.
Keywords:
Equalizer mode
Shock absorbing mode
Plurality of accumulators containing quantity of gas
Applicable to leg with at least two rigidly interconnected generally parallel chords
Chords connected to the platform by jacking assembly
Equalizing vertical unequal movement due to lateral deflection of chords
Shock absorbing by compression of gas upper side of jacking
Particular utility for jack assemblies of rack and pinion type
Shock pads
Hydraulic cylinder
Sump tank containing adequate supply of hydraulic fluid
Piston hydraulic cylinder diameter of order 0.5 m and stroke of 0.3 m
Working pressure order of 350 bar
Figure 6-3, Section of jacking assembly with equalizer/shock absorber.
33
2013.TEL.7807
6.3 Offshore drilling platform with vertically movable legs

Date of patent: May 23, 1978. Verschure, Pietrus J. M. (17 Prinses Marykestraat, Amsterdam, NL). [3.5]
Abstract:
An offshore drilling platform with vertically movable legs comprises a buoyant body and a plurality of
legs for supporting the body on the sea floor at an elevation above the water level. To permit floating
the body for transportation, the legs are selectively vertically movable relative to the body; and in the
present invention, this is effected by providing vertical racks on the legs that engage with power-
driven pinions carried by the body. The pinion drive has two free-wheel devices, one which free
wheels in one direction, and the other which free wheels in the other direction. Each free wheel is
clutch connected to the pinion drive, so that when the legs are at an intermediate stage of being
raised or lowered, and the platform is at about water level and the bottoms of the legs engage the
sea floor, the appropriate free wheel is utilized to let the wave action speed the movement of the legs
and platform relative to each other in the same direction that they are being more slowly driven by
the pinion drive. In this way, the pounding of the bottoms of the legs on the sea floor is
greatly diminished. Also, a system of slides and resilient connections between the legs
and the platform absorbs the shocks and reduces the stresses between these elements.
Keywords:
Two free wheel devices
System of slides and resilient connections
Free wheel in the form of one way clutch
Prevents platform from falling
Worms
Elastic block in housing
Figure 6-4, Side section jack housing with free wheels.
34
2013.TEL.7807
6.4 Shock absorbing structure and method for off shore jack-up
rigs
Date of patent: Apr. 1, 1980. Goldman, Jerome L. (225 Baronne St., New Orleans, LA, 70130). [4.5]
Abstract:
A new and improved shock absorbing structure and method for use on a jack-up off-shore
drilling rig is disclosed. The shock absorbing structure is designed for mounting on the bottom of
each existing leg of the drilling rig and comprises a novel bottom member fixedly attached to each leg
with the bottom member having a piston member positioned in the central portion thereof. The piston
member is associated with at least one compression member formed around the piston member with
the compression member being designed to absorb shock during a shock absorbing condition on the
drilling rig leg. The compression member is fixedly attached to the bottom member by retaining
means thereby making the structure self-contained.
Also disclosed is a new and novel method utilizing the shock absorbing structure on a jack-up off-
shore drilling rig.
Keywords:
Designed for drilling rig
Fixedly attached to bottom of each existing leg
Piston member
Compression member, roughly 4 meter diameter
Relatively simple shock absorbing structure
Minimum of moving parts
Relatively maintenance free
Solid/partially solid/web construction bottom member
Rubber bumpers
Spool like compression member, can be substituted by hydraulic shock absorbing device
Horizontal retaining of upper end piston by four leg spider member with central hub
Figure 6-5, Section of leg bottom with absorber, pre-shock absorbing mode (left) and shock absorbing mode (right).
35
2013.TEL.7807
6.5 Device for absorbing impacts during lowering or lifting

respectively of the support legs of an artificial island
Date of patent: Sep. 18, 1984. RSV-Gusto Engineering B.V. (NL). Boon, Bart (Schiedam, NL). [5.5]
Abstract:
Device for absorbing impacts during lowering or lifting respectively of the support legs (1)
of an artificial island comprising a pontoon and legs that are movable and lockable with respect to said
pontoon further comprising the fact that the legs (1) at or near their lower end are surrounded by an
apron (3) out of flexible material that is fixed to the circumference of each leg and extends beyond
the lower end of said leg.
Keywords:
Designed for legs of artificial island
Lower end of legs surrounded by apron, extends beyond lower end
Flexible material
Defines a water-filled room
Hydraulic absorption in both directions
Sucked against the ground
Horizontal movement absorbed also
Apron of cylindrical/conical shape
Weights on lower end stretch and strengthens
Apron of sieve material, promoting uniform flow in or out
When manufactured of impervious material, provided with openings
To use in more unfavorable conditions
Figure 6-6, Section of leg bottom with apron.
36
2013.TEL.7807
6.6 Load transfer and monitoring system for use with jack-up
barges
Date of patent: Nov.13, 1984. Ateliers, Et Chantiers De Bretagne Acb (FR). [6.5]
Abstract:
A load transfer apparatus for jack-up barges provides a barge and at least three legs movably
attached to the barge with a jacking mechanism associated respectively with each of the legs for
vertically moving the legs with respect to the barge. A hydraulic pad is associated with each of the
jacking mechanism and is placed between the jacking mechanism and the barge, forming a load
transfer and load monitoring interface between the jacking mechanism and the barge. The pad
includes preferably a hollow inflatable steel reinforced rubber pad which is pressurized during
operation using suitable hydraulic fluid. The apparatus reduces impact load on the platform
structure when the legs first touch bottom and might also be used to pre-load the legs using the
hydraulic pads instead of ballast. The apparatus can be additionally used to monitor the load carried
by each leg and to balance the loads among the legs, as well as to dampen vibrations.
Keywords:
Hydraulic pad
Between jacking mechanism and barge
Hollow inflatable steel reinforced rubber pad
Pressurized using hydraulic fluid
Additional load monitoring, load balancing, dampen vibrations
Loading configuration statically determinate
Short stroke jacking capacity
Preloading without using ballast or adding weight, reducing ballast space requirements
Flexible curtain, to prevent dust entering assembly
Filled with core, to prevent side walls to be crushed. (use of glass beads)
Valves
Preload force of f.e. 120 tons
Gas compression participates as shock absorber
Figure 6-7, Jack housing with absorber.
Figure 6-8, Section view absorber.

37
2013.TEL.7807
6.7 Shock absorber and method for offshore jack-up rigs

Date of patent: Nov.6, 1990. Goldman, Jerome L. (935 Gravier St., Ste. 2100, New Orleans, LA, 70112). [7.5]
Abstract:
A new and improved shock absorber mechanism and method for use on the leg structure of a jack-
up offshore drilling rig is disclosed. The shock absorbing mechanism is designed to be mounted on the
bottom of each existing leg of a drilling rig and comprises a pointed piston member which is
positioned on the bottom of the leg structure, wherein the piston member projects downward through
the can/footing of the rig leg and is held in place by a resilient tension member which is designed
to absorb shock forces during vertical/axial impact of the leg structure when contact is
made with the ocean floor.
Keywords:
Made for vertical impact only
Simple shock absorbing device
Quick operation and maintenance
Can be used in rough ocean conditions
Sliding vertical manner
Designed to limit any horizontal forces
Piston cuts through ocean floor, creating soft surface
Tension member possibly made of nylon chords, which is not expensive.
Figure 6-9, Section of leg bottom with absorber.
Figure 6-10, Absorber piston.
38
2013.TEL.7807
6.8 Device for the integrated suspension and manipulation of

the legs of a jack-up platform
Date of patent: April 7, 1992. Technip, Geoproduction (Paris La Defense, FR).[8.5]
Abstract:
A device for the integrated suspension and manipulation of legs supporting a jack-up oil platform
having a hull mounted displaceable on the legs by drive mechanisms having at least two opposite
units each formed by a motor associated with at least one speed reducer driving an output gear co-
operating with opposite racks mounted on at least part of the length of the legs. The opposite units of
each drive mechanism are mounted in articulated fashion on a structure supporting them via at least
one bearing allowing a determined angular deflection of the units and of each corresponding output
gear. The motor and the speed reducer of each opposite unit are housed in a member for absorbing
energy, used, in particular, at the moment of the placement of the legs on the sea bed and
for limiting the stresses due to the flexure of the legs under the action of swells and the
wind.
Keywords:
Housing member for absorbing energy
Twisting sleeve
Intermediate collar
Adjustable tie
Shock damping
Flexibility between legs
Compact, low bulk
Without endangering personnel
Large damping travel, torsional turns not limited
Equalize torques between speed reducers
Figure 6-11, Top view section jack housing.
Figure 6-12, Section view twisting sleeves.
39
2013.TEL.7807
6.9 Device for sitting on the seabed for self-raising sea vessels
Date of patent: 05.03.2010. Saipem S.p.A. (Via Martiri di Cefalonia, 67, 20097 San Donato Milanese (Milano), IT).
[9.5]
Abstract:
Device for sitting on the seabed for sea vessels (1) equipped with self-raising support legs (4),
wherein each leg comprises:
a vertical structural element capable of lowering and raising;
a device for absorbing collisions and for centering essentially consisting of:
i. a coaxial telescopic means (11) fixedly connected to said structural element through a hinged elastic
means (13);
ii. a support foot comprising a semi-spherical joint (14) connected to the telescopic element; and
iii. a coaxial centering pin (15) fixedly connected to the support foot through a hinged elastic means.
Keywords:
Coaxial telescopic means fixedly connected through hinged elastic means
Support foot of semispherical joint
Coaxial centering pin
Rack jacking and hydraulic jacking system
Elastic means of jacks or oil-dynamic pistons connected to accumulators by mechanical
springs or rubber elements
Resting system initiates at f.e. 100 to 150 cm leg bottom to seabed distance when leg
lowering is stopped
Cardan joints
Figure 6-13, View bottom leg absorber.
Figure 6-14, Section view bottom leg absorber into seabed.
40
2013.TEL.7807
7 Conclusion
The goal of this research was to survey the operational window of installing a jack-up unit. The focus
was on the leg impact during touch down. This research resulted in an overview of what information
is necessary to design a device to reduce the leg impact. The impact of the leg during touch down
depends on the vessel specifications and environmental parameters.
Size and shape

Jack-ups are present in a large variety of size and shape. Two main groups were distinguished: flat
barge type and jack-ups with shape of a vessel. The barge type is often not self-propelled while the
vessel type often is self-propelled ad equipped with dynamic positioning system.
The length of barge types ranges from 30 to 100 m. Ship type has range in length of 90 to 160 m.
The mass of the ships was based on jacking capacities. It was determined in the leg impact
calculation.
Legs
Several leg types are used on jack-ups; cylindrical legs, square tubular legs, and lattice legs. The
lattice legs were often used for larger water depth. The barge type jack-ups are usually built for
shallower water, up to 45 m, while the ship type is used in water to 80 m depth. The length of the leg
determines the operating depth which is important in the calculation of the impact load.
Jacking system
Jacking of the units can be achieved in several ways. Two types are most common: rack and pinion
and pin-hole. The first is by use of hydraulic jacks and pins the legs. The second uses electric motors
driving the pinion over racks along the legs. The jacking system has lower influence on the impact
load but determines the possibility of a leg impact reducing device.
Environmental conditions
Maximum operating conditions are prescribed in specifications sheets for each vessel. It often
concerns the maximum significant wave height. The corresponding wave period is often not provided
but is important for determining the impact load. Another important parameter which is not prescribed
is the seabed condition. Soft clay results in much lower reaction loads than dense sand and hard clay.
Calculation
Some classification societies provide calculation method for the impact load. Of all the members the
International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) only three provide a method. They all
provide a more or less same method. There some difference in presentation, but the principles are the
same. The three societies are: Bureau Veritas, Det Norske Veritas and Russian Maritime Register of
Shipping.
The DNV calculation method was used to perform calculations to determine leg impact for the range
of jack-ups concerned in this research. Impact loads were calculated and compared for three
situations. The first was according to prescribed allowable operating conditions. The second was
calculated to determine the effect of a shock absorber. And the third calculation was to compare
higher wave conditions, which represented a larger weather window, with allowable values when a
shock absorber was used. The impact loads for lattice legs were different from tubular legs. Loads
were higher and the shock absorber had less effect than for tubular legs. The conclusion for all jack-
ups was that a small damping stroke resulted in large allowable wave conditions.
The calculation was simplified on vessel motion and leg specifications. This means that for accurate
load values more detailed information should be used.
Patents for jack-up leg shock absorbers

In the past several patented designs were made to reduce the leg impact load during installation of
jack-ups. Designs consider shock damping at location of the jack house or at the bottom of a jack-up
leg. Design for the leg bottom often use compressive members, while designs for jack housing often
use compressible gas or hydraulics to reduce the shock.
41
2013.TEL.7807
8 References
8.1 General literature

[1.1] Swales, John M. and Christine B. Feak (1994) Academic Writing for Graduate
Students: A Course for Nonnative Speakers of English. Michigan. The University of Michigan
Press [ISBN 0472082639]
[2.1] Elling, R. e.a. (2005), Rapportagetechniek, schrijven voor lezers met weinig tijd.
Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. 3e herz. dr. (boekhandel) [ISBN 9001291384]
[3.1] Dr Jose H. Vazquez (BASS) e.a. (2005), Jack up Units, A technical primer for the
offshore industry professional [E-Book]
[4.1] Tetra Tech EC, Inc. (February 2010) Port and Infrastructure Analysis for Offshore
Wind Energy Development
[5.1] R.C. Hibbeler (2011) Mechanics of Materials, 8th Edition
[6.1] http://www.ultramarine.com/g_info/moses/moses.htm
[7.1] Kurt Thomsen (2012) Offshore Wind; A Comprehensive Guide to Successful Offshore
Wind Farm Installation; Chapter Twelve – Vessels and Transport to Offshore Installations.
[8.1] Pierre Le Tirant, Christian Pérol – 1993, Stability and Operation of Jack-ups.
8.2 Research papers

[1.2] X.M. Tan, J. Li, C. Lu. Structural behaviour prediction for jack-up units during jacking
operations. 2003.
[2.2] I. A. A. Smith, T. C. Lewis, B. L. Miller, P. S. K. Lai, Limiting Motions for Jack-Ups
Moving onto Location, 1995.
[3.2] P.J. Owrid, Notrth Sea severity assessment, 1998.
8.3 Standards and Codes

[1.3] American Bureau of Shipping, Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Guide.
[2.3] American Bureau of Shipping, Guide for building and classing liftboats, January 2009.
[3.3] Bureau Veritas, Guidance Note for the Classification of Self-Elevating Units,
September 2010, Guidance Note NI 534 DT R00 E.
[4.3] China Classification Society, Rules for classification of sea-going steel ships, 2006.
[5.3] Det Norske Veritas AS (November 2012), Recommended Practice – Self-elevating
units: DNV-RP-C104.
[6.3] Germanischer Lloyd, Rules for Classification and Construction IV Industrial Services, 6
Offshore Technology, 2 Mobile Offshore Units, Edition 2007.
[7.3] Korean Register of Shipping, Guidance for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 2013.
[8.3] Lloyd’s Register, Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Mobile Offshore Units,
June 2013.
[9.3] Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, Rules for the survey and construction of steel ships, Part P Mobile
offshore drilling ujnits and special purpose barges, July 2009.
[10.3] Registro Italiano Navale, Rules for the Classification Units at Fixed Locations Drilling
Units,January 2012.
[11.3] Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, Rules for the classification, construction and
equipment of mobile offshore drilling units and fixed offshore platforms, 2011.
[12.3] Indian Register of Shipping, Rules and Regulations forthe Construction and
Classification of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, January 2013.
42
2013.TEL.7807
8.4 Jack-up specifications

[1.4] http://www.gustomsc.com/attachments/article/133/09-013_Naga%202.pdf
[2.4] http://www.gustomsc.com/attachments/article/136/12-021%20-%20JB-118.pdf
[3.4] http://www.swireblueocean.com/files/pdf/sbo_technical_specs_may_2013.pdf
[4.4] http://www.wavewalkerbv.com/downloads/datasheet.pdf
[5.4] http://www.gustomsc.com/index.php/zoo/product-sheets-8233/doc_download/705-
variable-speed-rack-and-pinion-jacking-system
[6.4] 151_GustoMSC 08.107 - Hydr. jacking system HPE
[7.4] http://www.vroon.nl/Files/VesselParticulars/MPI%20RESOLUTION20130507100532.p
df
[8.4] http://www.crowley.com/content/download/2070/9940/version/2/file/Crowley-TITAN-
Salvage-Brochure-Jack-Up-Barges.pdf
[9.4] http://www.a2sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Techsheet_SEA_JACK.pdf
[10.4] http://www.millerwelds.com/resources/articles/images/industry_interests/titan/Titan_
1_small.jpg
[11.4] http://www.a2sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Techsheet_SEA_ENERGY.pdf
[12.4] JB 104: http://www.diesekogroup.com/wms/fm/userfiles/content/F92EAED7-D373-
E2F6-5D8C-BD3583F35318.pdf
[13.4] http://www.gustomsc.com/index.php/component/docman/doc_download/615-pauline
[14.4] Jb114: http://www.diesekogroup.com/wms/fm/userfiles/content/299099BA-3D56-
AEE8-3AD1-A9355F6DAF00.pdf
[15.4] Jb117: http://www.diesekogroup.com/wms/fm/userfiles/content/540F2968-B3EC-
A377-54E8-4CD3EF1D4B86.pdf
[16.4] http://www.master-marine.no/images/stories/documents/nora_spec.pdf
[17.4] http://www.swireblueocean.com/files/pdf/sbo_technical_specs_may_2013.pdf
[18.4] http://www.workfox.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=42&lay
out=blog&Itemid=36
8.5 Patents
[1.5] Fast jack lift boat shock absorbing jacking system. June 10, 2010. Juan, Lizarraga J.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0143043.html
[2.5] Load equalizing and shock absorber system for off-shore drilling rigs. Oct. 19, 1976.
Levingston Shipbuilding Company (Orange, TX).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3986368.html
[3.5] Offshore drilling platform with vertically movable legs. May 23, 1978. Verschure,
Pietrus J. M. (17 Prinses Marykestraat, Amsterdam, NL).
[4.5] Shock absorbing structure and method for off shore jack-up rigs. Apr. 1, 1980.
Goldman, Jerome L. (225 Baronne St., New Orleans, LA, 70130).
[5.5] Device for absorbing impacts during lowering or lifting respectively of the support legs
of an artificial island. Sep. 18, 1984. RSV-Gusto Engineering B.V. (NL). Boon, Bart (Schiedam,
NL).
[6.5] Load transfer and monitoring system for use with jack up barges. Nov.13, 1984.
Ateliers, Et Chantiers De Bretagne Acb (FR).
[7.5] Shock absorber and method for offshore jack-up rigs. Nov.6, 1990. Goldman, Jerome
L. (935 Gravier St., Ste. 2100, New Orleans, LA, 70112).
[8.5] Device for the integrated suspension and manipulation of the legs of a jack-up
platform. April 7, 1992. Technip, Geoproduction (Paris La Defense, FR).
[9.5] Device for sitting on the seabed for self-raising sea vessels. 05.03.2010. Saipem
S.p.A. (Via Martiri di Cefalonia, 67, 20097 San Donato Milanese (Milano), IT).
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP2228490A1.html
43
2013.TEL.7807
Appendix A: Calculations
44
Mean signiﬁcant wave height (m) at FoƟes oil ﬁeld in the North Sea over period of 1976 to 1993
reference: [3.2]
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Mean
jan 3,6 2,7 3,3 2,7 2,6 4,5 2,4 3,7 3,9 2,8 3,4 2,6 2,9 3 3,3 1,9 2,6 4,3 3,1
feb 2,1 2,4 2,8 2,7 2,3 2,6 2,4 2 2,8 2,2 2,2 2,2 3,2 3,5 3,5 2,6 2,6 2,8 2,6
mrt 2,6 2,1 2,2 2,8 2,8 2,5 2,5 2,3 2,7 2,3 2,5 2,9 2,8 2,6 3,7 2 2,7 2,5 2,6
apr 1,8 2,4 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,6 2 1,4 1,5 2,7 2 1,5 1,8 1,9 1,6 2,4 2,1 2 1,9
mei 1,3 1,2 1 1,8 1,2 1,8 1,4 1,5 1,4 1,4 2 1,8 1,4 1,4 1,2 1,6 1,4 1,5 1,5
jun 1,1 1,1 1,4 1,2 1,6 1,9 1,4 1,4 1,7 1,3 2 1,3 1,2 1,4 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,3 1,4
jul 1,5 1,2 1,5 1,2 1,4 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,6 1,7 1,3 1,4 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,3
aug 0,8 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,6 1,1 1,7 1,2 1,5 1,8 1,9 1,7 1,3 1,6 1,4 0,8 1,7 1,3 1,4
sep 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,1 1,7 2 2,1 2,3 2 1,4 2,1 1,9 2 1,7 2,1 1,8 1,9 1,8 2,0
okt 2,3 2 1,9 2,7 3,2 2,9 2,5 3,1 2,5 1,7 1,9 2,5 2,5 2,2 2,5 2,9 2,1 2,2 2,4
nov 2,1 3,4 2,3 2,6 2,7 3,3 3,2 2,5 3,4 3,4 2,9 1,8 2,7 2,3 2,2 3,3 3 2,5 2,8
dec 2,5 3 3,5 3,4 3,1 2,7 3,1 3,4 2,8 2,6 3,3 2,1 3,1 2,4 3,4 2,6 2,7 3,1 2,9
Mean significant wave height (m) at Foties oil field in the North Sea
over period of 1976 to 1993
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
Mean SWH (m)
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
jan feb mrt apr mei jun jul aug sep okt nov dec
Page 1 of 7
Impact load calculation
This calculation is according to DNV Recommended Practice rp-c104_2012-11

Section 4.6 and Appendix A.10
Jack-up specifications Barges Ships

Pauline (SEA JB114 (SEA JB117
JB104 Sea Jack Sea Energy Nora MPI Resolution Seafox 5 Pacific Orca
900 ) 200) (SEA3250 )
Length (m) 30,5 48 55,5 75,9 95 91,7 105 130 151 160
Width (m) 17,1 25 32,2 40 33 21,6 50 38 50 49
Max Draft (m) 2 2,5 3,6 3,9 5,5 4,25 5,5 4,3 5,12 6
Block coefficient * 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
Jack Capacity (mT/leg) 400 900 1250 2250 2500 1200 1800 2850 1750 1400
Max SWH (m) * 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 2 3 2 2,5
Vessel mass Mh (mT) 648 2191 4757 9294 14840 6282 18561 15411 27237 31250
Number of legs 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 6
Leg Type Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Square tube Square tube 3 Chord truss Square tube 3 Chord truss 3 Chord truss
Leg diameter (m) * 1,4 2 3 3,5 3 2,5 - 4 - -
Leg length (m) 47,4 50 73,15 80 50,4 32 130 71,8 106 105
Max Operating depth (m) 25 30 40 45 30 24 80 35 65 75
θroll (deg) * 5,01 3,43 2,67 2,15 2,60 3,97 2,29 4,51 2,29 2,92
θroll (rad) 0,087 0,060 0,047 0,037 0,045 0,069 0,040 0,079 0,040 0,051
T (s) * 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 8
Material propterties
Water density ρwater 1 mT/m3
Steel density ρsteel 7,85 mT/m3

E-modulus E 2,10E+08 kN/m2
* = estimated value
Input: Calculation formulas and assumptions Page 2 of 7
Simplified leg parameters

wall t (m) D (m) Aci (m2) AQ (m2) h (m) IY (m4) ML (mT/m)
Trusswork 0,09 0,8 0,20 0,0463 12 14,45 14,18
Square tube 0,06 - - - - - -
Cylinder 0,09 - - - - -
For cylinder/square tube
IY = ) m4

Leg stiffness
Ky = 3EI/l3 kN/m
Kv = EA/l kN/m
Results: Calculated parameters Page 3 of 7
Barges Ships
900 ) 200) (SEA3250 )
Mm (mT) 939 2700 5790 10656 15518 6734 23100 16994 30925 37632
2
IH (mTm ) 15033 108651 391274 1179720 1282088 215433 3410675 1635635 5004847 5514749
IA (mTm2) 9002 55224 196328 557364 552616 93700 1719436 732300 2301871 2691541
2
Imr (mTm ) 105865 395978 1406628 3201610 2222827 448688 17648822 3585451 14804708 24004012
d (m) 8,52 12,48 16,08 19,99 16,48 10,77 24,98 18,94 24,98 24,47
ML (mT) 73 127 258 341 170 113 1135 264 922 1064
IL (mTm2) 81830 232102 819027 1464527 388123 139555 12518711 1217516 7497989 15797722
di (m) 15 20 26 30 22 16 47 26 41 45
IY (m4) 0,08 0,25 0,87 1,40 0,87 0,50 14,45 2,11 14,45 14,45
A (m2) 0,37 0,54 0,82 0,96 0,72 0,60 0,60 0,96 0,60 0,60
Ky (kN/m) 3219 5759 8581 9696 20341 22577 17785 31060 33158 21584
Kv (kN/m) 3111308 3780278 4319611 4499389 5040000 5250000 1580889 5760000 1945709 1686281
Reaction loads on leg bottom without damping
PH (MN) 0,2 0,3 0,6 0,5 0,9 1,1 5,7 1,2 9,4 9,4
Pv (MN) 52 76 119 111 119 110 157 124 213 241
Internal forces and stress
Axial load in leg, N (MNm) 52,35 76,45 119,43 111,13 118,62 110,26 157,04 123,84 212,76 240,66
Normal stress, σN (MPa) 141 142 145 115 165 184 261 129 353 400
Shear in leg, V (MN) 0,16 0,28 0,59 0,54 0,87 1,06 5,66 1,23 9,43 9,44
Shear stress, τs (MPa) 0,43 0,52 0,72 0,56 1,21 1,76 9,39 1,29 15,67 15,68
Moment in leg, M (MNm) 3,97 8,40 23,60 24,26 26,14 25,35 452,64 43,19 613,23 708,17
Bending stress, σb (MPa) 35 34 41 30 45 64 141 41 191 220
Horizontal impact load Ph (MN)

10,0
9,0
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0 Horizontal impact load
2,0 Ph (MN)
1,0
0,0
Results Page 4 of 7
Dynamic factor
Max static load per leg MN 3,2 10,7 23,3 45,6 72,8 30,8 91,0 50,4 133,6 102,2
Dynamic Factor, w.r.s. to Pv 16,47 7,11 5,12 2,44 1,63 3,58 1,72 2,46 1,59 2,36
Vertical impact load Pv (MN) Dynamic factor

300 18
250 16
14
200 12
10
150
8
100 6
Vertical impact load Pv
4 Dynamic factor
50 (MN)
2
0 0
Ratio impact load to buckling load
Pbuckling (MN) = π2EI/Lb2 , where Lb is buckling length
Pbuckling (MN) 378 812 1613 2051 2868 2547 6687 5109 10129 7608
Ratio to impact load 0,14 0,09 0,07 0,05 0,04 0,04 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,03
Ratio impact load to buckling load

16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4% Ratio impact load to
buckling load
2%
0%
Reaction loads on leg bottom for higher Significant Wave Height Page 5 of 7
Increase of max significant wave height SWH + 1m
Barges Ships
900 ) 200) (SEA3250 )
Length (m) 30,5 48 55,5 75,9 95 91,7 105 130 151 160
Width (m) 17,1 25 32,2 40 33 21,6 50 38 50 49
Max draft (m) 2 2,5 3,6 3,9 5,5 4,25 5,5 4,3 5,12 6
Block coefficient 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8
Jack Capacity (mT/leg) 400 900 1250 2250 2500 1200 1800 2850 1750 1400
Max SWH (m) 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 2,5 3 4 3 3,5
Vessel mass Mh (mT) 648 2191 4757 9294 14840 6282 18561 15411 27237 31250
Number of legs 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 6
Leg Type Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Cylinder Square tube Square tube 3 Chord truss Square tube 3 Chord truss 3 Chord truss
Leg diameter (m) 1,4 2 3 3,5 3 2,5 - 4 - -
Leg length (m) 47,4 50 73,15 80 50,4 32 130 71,8 106 105
Max Operating depth (m) 25 30 40 45 30 24 80 35 65 75
θroll (deg) 8,32 5,71 4,44 3,58 4,33 6,60 3,43 6,01 3,43 4,09
θroll (rad) 0,145 0,100 0,077 0,062 0,076 0,115 0,060 0,105 0,060 0,071
T (s) 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 18 6 8
Mm (mT) 939 2700 5790 10656 15518 6734 23100 16994 30925 37632
2
IH (mTm ) 15033 108651 391274 1179720 1282088 215433 3410675 1635635 5004847 5514749
IA (mTm2) 9063 55400 196705 558059 553628 94099 1721152 734061 2304168 2694893
2
Imr (mTm ) 105926 396153 1407006 3202306 2223839 449087 17650538 3587213 14807005 24007364
d (m) 8,46 12,44 16,05 19,96 16,45 10,73 24,96 18,90 24,96 24,44
ML (mT) 73 127 258 341 170 113 1135 264 922 1064
IL (mTm2) 81830 232102 819027 1464527 388123 139555 12518711 1217516 7497989 15797722
di (m) 15 20 26 30 22 16 47 26 41 45
IY (m4) 0,08 0,25 0,87 1,40 0,87 0,50 14,45 2,11 14,45 14,45
A (m2) 0,37 0,54 0,82 0,96 0,72 0,60 0,60 0,96 0,60 0,60
Ky (kN/m) 3219 5759 8581 9696 20341 22577 17785 31060 33158 21584
Kv (kN/m) 3111308 3780278 4319611 4499389 5040000 5250000 1580889 5760000 1945709 1686281
Reaction loads on leg bottom for SWH + 1 m

PH (MN) 0,3 0,5 1,0 0,9 1,5 1,8 8,5 1,6 14,2 13,2
Pv (MN) 87 127 199 185 197 183 235 165 319 337
Effect of shock absorber at bottom of leg Page 6 of 7
Shock + strain energy = kinetic energy

Shock energy = Pv x s Assumed is that the shock absorber provides a constant decelaration force throughout its stroke
Strain energy = Pv2 / 2Kv
Shock stroke 2,00E-01 m
Barges Ships
900 ) 200) (SEA3250 )
Shock absorber stroke, s (m) 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20 0,20
Kinetic energy with standard Significant Wave Height:

Ek (MNm) 0,44 0,77 1,65 1,37 1,40 1,16 7,80 1,33 11,63 17,17
By adding a shock absorber the vertical load is reduced to:

Pv, damped 2,20 3,85 8,22 6,84 6,96 5,77 36,85 6,64 54,36 77,06
ratio (%) 0,042 0,050 0,069 0,062 0,059 0,052 0,235 0,054 0,256 0,320
Ratio damped to undamped

impact load
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Ratio (%) damped to
5%
undamped impact load
0%
Allowable kinetic energy with use of damper (equal to strain energy plus damping energy):
Ek_all (MNm) 10,91 16,06 25,54 23,60 25,12 23,21 39,21 26,10 54,18 65,31
Kinetic energy with increased Significant Wave Height Page 7 of 7
With increased Significant Wave Height the load in the leg with shock absorber is:
Pv, SWH+1 (MN) 6,04 10,62 22,58 18,83 19,17 15,88 78,00 11,74 113,99 139,25
Kinetic energy:
Ek (MNm) 1,21 2,14 4,58 3,81 3,87 3,20 17,52 2,36 26,14 33,60
Ratio Ek, SWH+1 to Ek_all 0,11 0,13 0,18 0,16 0,15 0,14 0,45 0,09 0,48 0,51
Ratio kinetic energy from high SWH to allowable

kinetic energy (with shock absorber)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% Ratio high SWH kinetic
10% energy to allowable
0% kinetic energy
2013.TEL.7807
Appendix B: Jack-up unit specification sheets
45
1.1
JB104
Length (m) 30.5

Width (m) 17.1
Legs 4
Leg Type Cylinder
Leg length (m) 47.4
Jacking system Hydraulic Pin Hole
Year built n/a
Max Operating depth (m) 25
Jack Capacity (mT/leg) 400
Jack speed (m/h) 15
Jack stroke (m) 1.5
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 1.5/-
a
1.2
Pauline (SEA 900)
Length (m) 48
Width (m) 25
Legs 4
Leg Type Cylinder
Leg length (m) 50
Year built 2002
Jack speed (m/h) n/a
Jack stroke (m) n/a
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 1.5
b
1.3
JB114 (SEA 200)
Length (m) 55.5

Width (m) 32.2
Legs 4
Leg Type Cylinder
Leg length (m) 73.15
Year built 2009
Jack speed (m/h) 39
Jack stroke (m) 1.7
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 1.5/ -
c
1.4
JB117 (SEA3250)
Length (m) 75.9

Width (m) 40
Legs 4
Leg Type Cylinder
Leg length (m) 80
Year built 2012
Jack speed (m/h) 15
Jack stroke (m) n/a
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 1.5/ -
d
1.5
Sea Jack
Length (m) 95
Width (m) 33
Legs 4
Leg Type Square Tube
Leg length (m) 50.4
Jacking system Wire winch
Year built 2003
Jack speed (m/h) 48
Jack stroke (m) n/a
e
2.1
Sea Energy
Length (m) 91.7

Width (m) 21.6
Legs 4
Leg Type Square tube
Leg length (m) 32
Jacking system Wire winch
Year built 2002
Jack Capacity (mT/leg) n/a
Jack speed (m/h) 42
Jack stroke (m) n/a
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) n/a
f
2.2
Nora
Length (m) 105

Width (m) 50
Legs 4
Leg Type 3 Chord truss
Leg length (m) 130
Jacking system Rack & Pinion
Year built 2011
Jack Capacity (mT/leg) 1800*
Jack speed (m/h) 27
Jack stroke (m) n/a
g
2.3
MPI Resolution
Length (m) 130

Width (m) 38
Legs 6
Leg Type Square tube
Leg length (m) 71.8
Jacking system Hydraulic brace
Year built 2003
Jack speed (m/h) 30
Jack stroke (m) n/a
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 3.0/18 s
h
2.4
Seafox 5
Length (m) 151

Width (m) 50
Legs 4
Leg length (m) 106
Jacking system Rack & pinion
Year built 2012
Jack speed (m/h) 60
Jack stroke (m) n/a
Jacking SWH (m)/period (s) 2.0/ 6
i
2.5
Pacific Orca
Length (m) 160

Width (m) 49
Legs 6
Leg length (m) 105
Jacking system Rack & pinion
Year built 2012
Jack speed (m/h) 72
Jack stroke (m) n/a

Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Faculty Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND

Specialization: Transport Engineering and Logistics

Report number: 2013.TEL.7807

Title: Operational window for

Author: J. van Essen

Title (in Dutch): Werkbaarheid voor plaatsing van jack-ups

Initiator (university): ir. W. van den Bos

Initiator (company): ir. L. van Adrichem (Temporary Works Design, Rotterdam)

Supervisor: ir. W. van den Bos

Date: November, 2013

Student: J. van Essen Assignment type: Literature

Subject: Operational window for touchdown of jack-up barges

• An overview of jack-up types (e.g. sizes, weights, jack-up systems);

ir. W. van den Bos.

1.1 General introduction

Figure 1-1, Different operating modes for a jack-up [3.1]

1.2 Goal of the research

1.3 Report structure

3 Parameters and range

3.1 Hull shapes

The difference is noticeable by their hull shape and movability.

Figure 3-5, Top view of jack-up vessels size range

3.3 Operating depth

3.4 Jack-up legs

Leg length and operating depth (m)

3.5 Jacking systems

Name Jacking Jack Jack Jack Jacking SWH

JB104 Pin Hole 400 15 1.5 1.5**

Sea Energy Wire winch n/a 42 n/a 1.5**

Rack and pinion

Figure 3-10, Example of pinion drive system. [5.4]

Pin hole jacking system

Figure 3-11, Schematic arrangement pinhole system. [3.3]

Figure 3-13, Schematic arrangement hydraulic grippers. [3.3]

Wire and winch

3.6 Environmental parameters

Figure 3-14, Soil characteristics according to [2.2].

4 Standards and Codes

4.1 International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)

• American Bureau of Shipping

4.2 American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [1.3], [2.3]

4.3 Bureau Veritas [3.3]

4.4 China Classification Society [4.3]

4.5 Det Norske Veritas [5.3]

4.6 Germanischer Lloyd [6.3]

4.7 Korean Register of Shipping [7.3]

4.8 Lloyd's Register of Shipping [8.3]

4.9 Nippon Kaiji Kyokai [9.3]

4.10 Registro Italiano Navale [10.3]

4.11 Russian Maritime Register of Shipping [11.3]

4.12 Indian Register of Shipping [12.3]

4.13 Croatian Register of Shipping

4.14 Polish Register of Shipping

4.15 Observations from codes and standards

5 Load impact calculation

Significant wave height

Figure 5-1, Weather window for jack-ups.

5.3 Calculation results

Figure 5-2, Horizontal impact loads.