HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

Review of structural modelling of deep water

jack up structures

Prepared by KW Ltd for the

Health and Safety Executive 2004

RESEARCH REPORT 177

HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

Review of structural modelling of deep water

jack up structures

Alistair Walker
KW Ltd
Fetcham Park House
Lower Road
Fetcham
Surrey
KT22 9HD

The Health and Safety Executive have commissioned KW Ltd to carry out a fundamental assessment
of the dynamic characteristics of jack-up structures. The overall objective of the study is to develop an
understanding of the possible failure modes of such structures and to prepare a basis for the
fundamental modelling of the dynamic interaction of the structure, loading and foundations of jack-up
structures on a generic basis.
The work presented in this report is concerned with the determination of the non-linear response of
jack-up structures to dynamic loading. The analysis includes nonlinearities in the structure, the loading
and the interaction between the structure and the seabed.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

HSE BOOKS

 Crown copyright 2004

First published 2004
ISBN 0 7176 2795 0
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The work presented in this report is concerned with the determination of the non-linear
response of jack-up structures to dynamic loading.

The analysis includes non

linearities in the structure, the loading and the interaction between the structure and the
seabed.
The analysis is potentially extremely complex when applied to a detailed model of a
practical jack-up structure. In order to enable a wide range of parameters to be studied
a simplified model of a jack-up structure has been used. The analysis has been run
using a finite element program in which the dynamic response of the structure and
foundation to the imposed dynamic loading is calculated.

This is considered to

represent a series of numerical experiments in which a variety of foundation

parameters can be varied.
It was concluded from the results of the modelling that a jack-up structure is
dynamically self-correcting from a macro-structure, or system, viewpoint. That is, as
the magnitude of the loading was increased in the numerical experiments there is an
interaction between the dynamics of the structure and loading, resulting in yielding of
the soil.

Subsequent plastic deformation of the soil appears to prevent a simple form

of push-over.
A wide range of soil parameters have been considered in the numerical experiments. It
is concluded from the results that the use of the simplified model provides an efficient
method for exploring the sensitivity of jack-up structures to variations in loading and
foundation conditions. The computational method has been shown to be very effective
in coping numerically with the non-linearity of clay and sand foundations and the
dynamic structural and loading interactions, including randomly varying loading.

iii

iv

CONTENTS

1.0

Introduction

1.1.
1.2.

BACKGROUND
OBJECTIVES

2.

Review of Published research

3.

ANALYSIS Methodology

3.1.
3.2.

3.3.

4.

14

4.1.

14

14

16

17

7.

19

5.1.
5.2.

19

19

19

20

20

21

21

INTRODUCTION
CASES 1 AND 2
5.2.1. CASE 1
5.2.2. CASE 2
CASES 3 AND 4
5.3.1. CASE 3
5.3.2. CASE 4

Non-linear Dynamic Analysis

22

6.1.
6.2.
6.3.

22

24

25

25

28

32

INTRODUCTION
OUTLINE DESCRIPTION OF NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
RESULTS
6.3.1. ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS
6.3.2. ELASTIC-PLASTIC CLAY FOUNDATIONS
6.3.3. ELASTIC-PLASTIC SAND FOUNDATIONS

Conclusions and Recommendations

34

7.1.

34

34

35

38

7.2.

8.

CLAY FOUNDATION
4.1.1. LOW FOUNDATION STIFFNESS
4.1.2. HIGH FOUNDATION STIFFNESS
SAND FOUNDATION

Linear Dynamic Analysis

5.3.

6.

11

11

Static Analysis Results

4.2.

5.

SYSTEMS APPROACH
SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM MODEL
3.2.1. STRUCTURE MODEL
3.2.2. FOUNDATION MODEL
3.2.3. LOADING
ANALYSIS CASES

CONCLUSIONS
7.1.1. GENERAL
7.1.2. CONCLUSIONS FROM DETAILED RESULTS
RECOMMENDATIONS

References

40

APPENDIX Figures

41

vi

1.0

1.1.

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Health and Safety Executive have commissioned KW Ltd to carry out a
fundamental assessment of the dynamic characteristics of jack-up structures. The
overall objective of the study is to develop an understanding of the possible failure
modes of such structures and to prepare a basis for the fundamental modelling of the
dynamic interaction of the structure, loading and foundations of jack-up structures on a
generic basis
In most fixed offshore structures the analysis of the interaction between the base of the
structure and the soil foundation is simplified, at least in terms of defining the
interaction between the structure and its foundation, since the actual foundation loads
are transmitted from the structure to the seabed through piles driven deep into the
seabed. The reaction of fixed structures is essentially quasi-static and the dynamic
reaction is of interest usually only with regard to the fatigue limit state of individual
structural members. This quasi-static modelling has enabled considerable progress to
be made in preparing design codes using limit state methodology. Particularly the
generation of forces in structural components by the wave loading has been modelled
by linearised analysis and used as the foundation for these design codes.
The simplified analysis is of course really only a precursor to the more complete
description of the limit states of collapse. Much progress has been made in
understanding the relationship between the limit states defined by the first limit load of
individual members and the ultimate collapse of the structure due to quasi-static
application of extreme wave loading. The studies in push-over mechanics of fixed
structures has been thoroughly developed and become an established component in
fixed structure design calculations.
The main thrust of the present study is to determine to what extent the methodology of
non-linear analysis can be applied to jack-up structures to provide a basis for limit state
design formulations and the derivation of the design factors based on structural
reliability theory. A jack-up structure is typically an essentially light-weight form of
structure in which the main components are
A very stiff deck supported on three legs
Mechanical attachments of the legs to the deck
Legs usually formed by a lattice work of fairly light-weight structural members
Bases, called spud cans, attached to the bottom of the legs and which rest on
the seabed
Soil foundation formed by the seabed
There is a well-established form of linearised analysis for determining the deformations
of jack-up structure in response to wave loading. This is reviewed in Section 2 of this
report. The analysis incorporates very detailed descriptions of the legs and the deck
structural components. The fixity of the legs to the relatively rigid deck structure is also
modelled in detail, although there is not straightforward since the fixity is more in the
form of mechanical attachments, i.e. clamps and ratchets and pinions, than in the form
of a fixed structural component.
The development of wave loading on fixed and jack-up structures has been the subject
of extensive research. This has involved measurements of waves and winds at sea,
the modelling of the generation of waves and very sophisticated modelling of the
hydrodynamics of the waves as they pass through the structure. This last is the basis

for calculating the loads that are actually applied to the structure.
In the case of jack-up structures, compared to fixed jackets, the structure rests directly
on the surface of the seabed through the base without any form of restraint such as
long piles. The wave loading on the structure causes dynamic variations in the loading
on the base that in turn apply varying loading on the soils constituting the seabed.
Thus the response of the jack-up to the wave loading depends on the dynamic
response of the structural members and also critically the dynamic response of the soil
under the base. The subject of the dynamic deformations, strains and stresses in soil
of various types, e.g. sand, clay, silt and mixtures of various types is extremely difficult
to model accurately and is the subject of continuing research across the world. In
practical terms the difficulties of accurately modelling the soil dynamic response is
compounded by the sparseness of the soil data that can be obtained for the area of
seabed on to which a jack-up structure is to be installed. Generally only one or two
cores are obtained and from these the layering and properties of the various
constituent soils composing the seabed are inferred.
It is a fact of geotechnical experience, however, that the depth of the layering can vary
considerably over quite small distances on the seabed. Thus although a core may
show a certain arrangement of soil types, a spud can may be resting on the seabed a
few meters away could actually be supported on quite a different arrangement. Thus
there is a very high degree of uncertainty involved in specifying the elastic properties,
such as stiffness, shear strength, of the seabed under a spud can. This uncertainty is
made more complex by the fact that a jack-up structure is supported on a number of
spud cans. There is even greater uncertainty in specifying the plastic properties of the
seabed, i.e. the post-elastic stress-strain relationships. To some extent the practice of
pre-loading the spud cans to cause extensions of the elastic range of the soil enables a
more clearly defined analysis model for low ranges of wave loading. Nevertheless, the
requirements of limit state analysis necessitate that the effects of extremes of loading
are investigated. Thus, inevitably the foundation loading will involve cyclic plastic
deformations of the soil under the spud cans.
Given the high degree of uncertainty in defining the soil non-linear properties under a
spud can in practice, the question arises: to what degree is the uncertainty in the
foundation properties reflected in the uncertainties in the limit states of failure of the
whole jack-up structure.
It would seem a natural extension of the non-linear push-over modelling for fixed jacket
structures to jack-up structures to investigate the limit states of jack-up structures and
to develop a base for the preparation of a limit state code for the design of such
structures. However, the fundamentally dynamic nature of the response of jack-up
structures to wave loading means that the analysis has to be based on non-linear
dynamic theory. This is a considerable increase in analysis complexity compared to
the quasi-static analysis for fixed jackets. In view of the complexity, the approach
taken in this study has been to use simplified models that incorporate the basic
dynamic non-linearity of loading, structure and foundation response. The simplified
model is then used to carry out a series of numerical experiments from which
conclusions can be inferred and develop insight to an approach to the non-linear
analysis of more complex models of jack-up structures.
LIMIT STATES
A jack-up structure may be considered similar to fixed offshore structures with regard to
the limit states of response to the applied dynamic wave loading. The identified limit
states are:
a. rigid body overturning
b. ductile failure of structural components

c. fatigue of significant structural components

The limit states of response are functions of
i.
the intensity and geometry of the loading on the structure
ii.
the dynamic spectrum of the loading, i.e. random, stochastic or
regular
iii.
the geometry of the structure
iv.
the non-linear properties of the structural materials
v.
the local effects of the structure, e.g. form of attachment of the legs
to the deck
vi.
the non-linear time varying properties of the soil foundations at the
spud cans
Generally, as shown in Section 2 of this report, a great deal of research has been
carried out to determine the dynamic nature of waves and the methods for calculating
the loading they can impose on relatively stationary offshore structures. Some aspects
of extreme wave loading remains to be elucidated such as slam under the decks of
structures and the loading on structures when the height of very large waves exceeds
the air gap under the deck. Nevertheless, the uncertainties associated with wave
loading with regard to limit state analysis of fixed and jack-up structures are fairly well
established.
The numerical modelling of structures, even in the non-linear range of material
deformations and strains, is also a well-established part of limit state structural design.
The practice is now common of carrying out push-over analysis to calculate the
ultimate limit state of fixed offshore structures. The result from such push-over analysis
provide an evaluation of the inherent safety margin that exists between the design
conditions of loading and the load levels corresponding to the ultimate push-over state.
The establishment of limit state design margins and design factors for jack-up
structures is currently being investigated. The impetus is to establish a methodology
for determining adequate safety factors that can be applicable to jack-up structures
proposed for installation in deeper waters than those for which operating experience
presently exists.
Just as in the case of fixed structures, the establishment of the limit states require for
jack-up structures the non-linear analysis of the response of the structure to the
dynamic wave loading. In view of the comments stated above, it seems evident that
the greatest uncertainty is the effect of the variability of the non-linear soil dynamic
response on the limit state of the jack-up structure.
1.2.

OBJECTIVES

By carrying out numerical experiments using a generic model of a jack-up structure,

with non-linear foundation conditions and subjected to dynamic loading. The objectives
of the present work are:
To prepare the basis for fundamental modelling on a generic basis of
deepwater jack-ups with particular reference to foundation conditions and
environmental loading.
To develop and understanding of the mechanics of failure of jack-ups subjected
to marine loading and integrating dynamically the effects of foundation,
structure and loading
To prepare a generic model of jack-up structures and to carry out dynamic fully
non-linear finite element analysis
To assess the result of the analyses and to determine the dynamic failure

modes of the integrated foundation and structure

To compare the failure mode with those calculated using linearised analysis
methods, such as the use of dynamic amplification factor
To prepare a report presenting the methodology of the generic analysis and
conclusions and recommendations and recommendations drawn from the
evaluation of the analysis results.
To prepare conclusions from the work and recommendations for further work.

2.

REVIEW OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH

The objective in Ref.[1] was to calculate the reserve strength of a jack-up structure
designed near its limits for a specific site. The modelling included a fully non-linear
elastic-plastic description of the structure.
The intention was to assess and
concentrate on the effects such as foundation stability, structural resistance of the leg
hull fixation system, hull sway and hull angular displacement. The pushover analysis[1]
although considered to be non-linear dynamic actually was based on a quasi-static
approach that incorporated a DAF approach. This is a conventional approach that has
been incorporated in the analysis of jacket and other offshore structures. However, it
involves certain assumptions about the dynamic response of jack-up structures that
may not be so valid as for piled jackets.
The loading[1] was modelled on the 10,000 year wave case representative of the North
sea A wave crest height of 18.8m was identified as the appropriate value with the
corresponding value for the maximum wave crest being 32.3m.
An important parameter in the structural analysis is the assumed degree of fixity at the
foot of the leg. This represents the interface of the spud-can and the soil, the
complexity of which is by-passed by this assumption of fixity. The report[1] provides a
valuable comparison between the various definitions of fixity that have been proposed.
These include one quasi-static definition and two alternative dynamic definitions. The
non-linear analysis used a static definition of fixity. The merit of this approach is
claimed to be that it provides a clearer basis of comparison with the measured values
of fixity. The measured values of fixity in fact do not show a good correlation with the
corresponding values calculated using the SNAME approach.
It is appreciated in the report that the real dynamic events are determined by the
sequence of inputs dictated by the sequence of wave heights and period approaching
the structure. The paper claims to capture the dynamic events by using a DAF
approach. The DAF is used to enable a quasi-static analysis approach to predict the
real dynamic push-over value of loading. The DAF approach is essentially a linearising
approach since it is based on the natural frequency of the undamaged structure and
foundation, the deterioration of which are the main parameters in the push-over limit
state approach.
The report considers four limit states associated with structural local failure, leg-hull
connection strength, leg differential settlement, leg sliding. The linearised quasi-static
analysis shows that some non-linearity is initiated at about 50% of the 10,000 year
loading but the maximum, i.e. apparent collapse condition, occurs at a factor
significantly greater than unity. The conclusion is that there is considerable reserve
factor inherent in the jack-up structure operating at that site and the factors associated
with the 100 year loading is up to 2.35 for structural failure, i.e. pushover. It is also
stated that the results from this analysis are in general agreement with others found for
jack-ups in the literature that apparently have reserve strength ratios relevant to the
100 year loading.
The conclusions from the quasi-static push-over analysis are encouraging from the
viewpoint of practical use of such structures in that the unit has been shown to survive
the 10,000 year event under the assumptions of pinned conditions. Increasing the
assumed degree of fixity is shown in the analysis to increase further the reserve

strength of the structure.

It is concluded[1] that the quasi-static procedure adopted is likely to be conservative,
albeit that some assumptions with regard to the dynamic response of the structure are
inherent in the analysis.
Soil-structure interaction effects were extensively studied in recent advanced work in
this area. It was generally concluded there that a practical analysis of a jack-up
structure should consider both the conditions of pinned and fixed degrees of fixity since
it is by no means certain that in a dynamic analysis the pinned condition is
conservative.
The assessment identified the sources of reserve strength in a jack-up as residing at
the component level and the system level. The component level is associated with the
variability in material strengths, a feature that is commons to most structures. The
system level is associated with redundancy in the structure in which the failure of one
member does not imply failure of the structures. This too, is a feature in common with
most other forms of offshore structures. However, it is evident from the report that the
evaluation of the reserve of strength associated with the various sources is not as
detailed as is the case for jacket structures.
It is not clear in the review what role is played by the implicit reserve of strength that
occurs because of the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of the analysis. In particular, the
comparison in the report between the situation of RSR for jacket structures and jack-up
does not highlight the possible different influence played by the dynamic responses of
the structures to environmental loading and the greater uncertainty of the foundation in
jack-ups compared to piled jacket structures.
A numerical model of a jack-up structure was prepared in recent advanced work in this
area and used to carry out a series of analyses to determine the response of the
structure to variations in parameters such as environmental loading and foundations
support. Although the report highlighted the need for fully non-linear analysis to
determine the actual push-over response to environmental loading and varying
foundation support, the analysis reported actually used the linearised quasi-static
analysis augmented by the DAF method. Nevertheless, the range of parameters
considered in resent work provides a valuable basis with which results from a fully non
linear dynamic analysis could be compared and thus develop a validation of the quasi
static linearised analysis method used in practice.

3.

3.1.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS APPROACH

One ultimate purpose of this analysis is to provide insight to the variability of the
dynamic response of a jack-up structure resulting from the non-linearity of the soil
foundations. The analysis has followed a systems approach in which the interest is
focussed on the response of a jack-up structure to its environmental loading and
supports is examined. The modelling deliberately excludes factors such as the detailed
geometry of the legs and mechanical attachment of the legs and deck structure. The
primary concern is the calculation of the way in which the structure as a system
responds to, and interacts with its environments.
The foundations of actual structures can vary significantly from one location to another
and it is not the intention here to analyse this aspect. Instead the soil foundations are
modelled in a generic manner such that the variation in response can be linked to
changes in the values of variables describing the soil stiffness, strength and post yield
stress-strain relationships. The results from the parametric analyses are used to
determine how the variability in particular aspects of the structural response is related
to the variability in the soil parameters.
Eventually, there may in design practice be a requirement to carry out fully non-linear
analysis of ultimate limit state conditions for jack-up structures. That would involve
modelling the wave loading, the deck and leg structures and the deck-leg connection
details, and the soil-leg interaction. Compared to the non-linear ultimate limit state
analysis of fixed offshore structures, the corresponding non-linear analysis of jack-up
structures is far more complex since the latter have an essentially dynamic response to
the wave loading. There is very limited guidance to the organisation of fully non-linear
dynamic analysis incorporating soil/structure/wave interactions. Another purpose of
carrying out the present non-linear analysis is to provide guidance for future fully non
linear design analyses.
Thus, the modelling of the loading and structure in the present analysis is deliberately
simplified to enable a wide range of foundation parameters to be considered without
incurring prohibitively excessive computing effort.
A description of the model is given in the next Section. The computation was carried
out using the non-linear foundation modelling and the non-linear geometric capabilities
in ABAQUS.
3.2.

SIMPLIFIED SYSTEM MODEL

3.2.1.
STRUCTURE MODEL
The model is shown in Figure 5.1. It is a three-legged portal frame in which the
horizontal member represents the deck of a jack-up structure. The deck is assumed to
be rigid and triangular in shape. The connections between the hull and the legs are
also modelled as being flexurally rigid. The modelled jack-up structure has two
windward legs and one leeward leg. The model is projected on to the vertical plane
that passes through the leeward leg and between the windward legs.
The legs are modelled by elastic beam columns at the upper and lower segments of
each leg. The lower segment of each leg is attached to a spud can that has three
degree of freedom, i.e. vertical, horizontal and rotational. The diameter of the spud
cans is 6m, the legs are 100m long and placed 45m apart from each other.

The mass of the structure is modelled as being concentrated at the centre of the hull
and 15m above the top of the legs. The simulated dynamic wave loading is applied at
the centre of mass and the total dead weight of the structure is 14,400 tonnes.
3.2.2. FOUNDATION MODEL
The foundation conditions are modelled as being either purely clay or sand.
models for these two types of foundation have been based on Ref. 3.

The

The relationship between the elastic stresses and strains in the foundation model are
shown in Equ.(3.1)
Two dimension spud can moduli [Ref. 3]

s 11

s 22
s
12

0 e 11
k 1111 0

k 2222
0 e 22

0
0
0
k 1212
e 12

Where
k 1111

is the vertical elastic spring stiffness ,2DGvv/(1- n ) ;

k 2222

is the horizontal elastic spring stiffness ,16(1- n )DGhh/(7-8n ) ;

k 1212

is the elastic spring stiffness in bending ,D 3 Grr/3(1-n ) ;

in which Gvv,Ghh,and Grr are equivalent elastic shear moduli for vertical,horizontal,and
rotational displacements,respectively; n is the Poisson's ratio, taken as 0.2 in the analysis

(3.1)
The non-linear elastic-plastic relationship between the moment, M, the horizontal force,
H, and the vertical forces for the spud can model is shown in equ. (3.2).

Clay [Ref. 4]
2

M + H - 0.5 V 1 - V 0
8 M 8 H
V

m

m

c

Vc

Where

Mm

Vc D

3 p

Hm

s u ( A + 2 Ah)

Mm,Hm are the moment and horizontal yield stresses

D is the Spud can diameter
n m is the total vertical plastic embedment
Vc is the compressive limit
A is the cross section area of the spud can
su is the undrained shear strength of clay;and A h is the elevation area of the
embedded portion of the Spud can,defined through:
Ah

Dn m

Working hardening equations

Flat-base spud can

Vc

a + bn m

in analysis

(3.2)
This provides the basis for the post-yield conditions for the simplified model when it is
loaded to stresses greater than the soil yield stress.
The corresponding elastic-plastic relationship for a purely sand foundation is shown in
equ. (3.3)

Sand [Ref. 1]

2
2
2
M + L H + L V - 1 - Vt V - Vt 0
1
2

DV

Vc

Vc

Vc Vc Vc

Where L 1 and L 2 are constant coefficients that determine the geometric shape of the
yield function The special case of L 1 = 1.0, L 2 =0.5,and V t = 0.0 gives the yield function as
proposed by Osborne, et al

Working hardening equations

Flat-base spud can
Vc
A Do g

- a n m

Nqn m
D
0.3 Ng
1 - e

where g is soil unit weight; a is an experimentally determined constant; and N g and Nq

are classical bearing capacity factors, which can be calculated as:

Nq

p tan ( f )

p f
tan +
4 2

Ng

2 ( Nq + 1 ) tan( f)

where f is the soil friction angle

(3.3)
These relationships are used together with the simplified model to examine the static,
elastic dynamic, and fully non-linear dynamic response of the model to simulated wave
loading.
The following Sections present the results from the various forms of analysis carried
out using the simplified model. The results are presented in the form of tables and
generally relate to
the moment generated in the legs due to the applied force or displacement
applied to the model
the displacements of the finite element nodes on foot of the legs of the model,
node 101 is relevant to the windward legs and node 301 is relevant to the
leeward legs
the displacements of the finite element nodes on top of the legs of the model,
node 140 is relevant to the windward legs and node 340 is relevant to the
leeward legs
the displacements of the position of load application (node 99999).
The directions of the calculated displacements are shown in Figure 5.1.
+ve u1 is horizontal displacement in the direction of positive loading
+ve u2 is vertically upwards displacement

10

+ve u3 is horizontal displacement in the direction normal to the direction of

positive loading
Rotations are in directions related to the u1, u2 and u3 axes by the right hand screw rule.
3.2.3. LOADING
The work reported here is a novel use of the analysis of a complete simplified structural
system, through a simplified model, to explore the effects of various foundation
conditions and frequency of the loading. The loading applied to the model is in two
forms. It is not intended to replicate any particular environmental loading but rather the
intention is to provide a basis for exploring the dynamic interactions of the loading and
the structural response, such as resonance. The two forma of loading are:
a. Harmonically varying applied loading with a maximum amplitude of 8000kN.
This value has been calculated from the extreme loading oin a typical jack-up
structure. The dynamic form of the applied loading is shown in Figure 5.5. It
may be seen there is a gradual ramping up of the magnitude of the load from
the initiation of the load application to its steady state value, after about 15
cycles. This is to avoid unrealistic transient structural responses at the
beginning of the analysis.
b. A loading with the maximum amplitude of 8000kN and with randomly varying
amplitudes between zero and the maximum value.
3.3. ANALYSIS CASES
A total of eighteen Cases have been run using the simplified structural system model.
The parameters governing the dynamic loading and the foundation conditions are
summarised in Table 3.1. It may be seen that the Cases are chosen to explore a
variety of conditions.
The fundamental frequencies of the model were calculated from the eigen-values of he
natural frequencies of the structure and foundation. The natural frequencies could be
tuned to any specific value by increasing or decreasing the stiffness of the foundation.
These calculations relate to the elastic conditions of the foundations and are separate
from the parameters determining the yield and post-yield response of the foundations.
The natural; frequencies also relate to the degree of flexural restraint applied to the
base of the legs. The calculated natural frequencies are essentially related to the zero
loading conditions of the structure. The restraint conditions vary as the loading and the
dynamic movements of the base of the legs increase and this inevitably changes the
instantaneous natural frequency of the structure. The dynamic analyses reported here
take this factor into account but is should be borne in mind that the natural frequencies
stated in Table 3.1 correspond to the initial zero load natural frequency of the structural
system.
The fundamental frequencies for the idealised conditions of fixed and pinned
foundations were also evaluated. The former condition is for complete flexural and
translational fixity and is 1.50Hz for the chosen model geometry. The latter condition is
for complete translational fixity and freedom from flexural restraint and is 0.67Hz.
The following describes the objectives for each Case run and summarised in Table 3.1.
Cases 1 and 2

explore the DAF level for an elastic clay foundation. In these

particular Cases the level of the maximum amplitude of the load has
been reduced significantly to ensure yielding of the foundation does
not occur and the dynamic response of the model is essentially linear.
The concept of DAF relates to linearised vibrations.

Cases 3 and 4

consider the effect of non-linear foundation conditions on the level of

the apparent DAF.

11

Case 5

investigates the dynamic response of the model with an elastic

foundation with a low stiffness and a frequency of loading almost 4
times greater than the natural frequency of the structural/foundation
model.

Case 6

considers the effects, in comparison with Case 5, of a model with

increased natural frequency and with fairly close matching of the
structural natural frequency and the frequency of the harmonic
loading.

Case 7

is similar to Case 6 except that the loading frequency is now less than
the natural frequency of the structure.

Case 8

investigates the effect, in comparison with Cases 6 and 7, of random

loading instead of steady state harmonic loading.

Cases 9 to 11

consider the sensitivity of the model with a yielding clay foundation

and subjected to steady state harmonic loading with three different
frequencies.

Case 12

considers the effect, compared to Case 11, of a variation of the clay

foundation yield surface

Case 13

considers the effect of increasing the foundation stiffness, in

comparison with Case 12.

Case 14

investigates, in comparison with Case 13, the effect of possibly

increasing the resonance condition.

Case 15

considers, in comparison with Case 11, the effect on the model of

increasing the foundation stiffness.

Case 16

provides a basis for determining the effect of random loading

compared to the steady state harmonic loading in Case 15.

Cases 17 and 18 consider the effect n the dynamic responses of the model when the
clay foundation is replaced by a foundation with properties of sand.

12

Table 3.1
Summary of analysis Cases
Case

Foundation
Type

Natural
Frequency of
Model (Hz)

Period of
Applied
Loading
(sec)

Foundation
Parameters

1*

Pinned

0.67

1.4

2*

Clay

0.69

1.4

Pinned

0.67

1.4

Clay

0.69

1.4

Elastic

0.14

Elastic

0.39

Elastic

0.39

Elastic

0.39

Random

Clay

0.14

su=7x104 b=9.3 x106

10

Clay

0.14

1.5

su=7x104 b=9.3 x106

11

Clay

0.14

su=7x104 b=9.3 x106

12

Clay

0.14

su=3x104 b=7.8x106

13

Clay

0.39

su=3x104 b=7.8 x106

14

Clay

0.39

su=3x104 b=7.8 x106

15

Clay

0.39

su=7x104 b=9.3 x106

16

Clay

0.39

Random

su=7x104 b=9.3 x106

17

Clay

0.39

L1=1 L2 = 0.5

18

Sand

0.39

L1=1 L2 = 0.5

*Load = 0.7 x 105 N

13

4.

STATIC ANALYSIS RESULTS

The results presented this Section are concerned with the moment generated in the
legs due to a unit force applied at the centre of mass of the model. A series of
computer runs were performed to investigate the response of the model structure to
variations in the soil properties, particularly for a range of elastic foundation stiffness.
The analyses were essentially static and are complemented in a later Section by
dynamic analyses of the model with elastic foundation conditions loaded by harmonic
time varying loading.
The foundation conditions considered here are for purely clay and sand properties.
Two sets of the soil properties are considered here, i.e. high and low levels of
foundation stiffness, and relate to extremes of the stiffness of the foundation soils.
Thus, with the two extreme conditions of soil stiffness, the effects of the un-drained
horizontal shear strength (Su) and the shear strength of the soil in the vertical direction
(b) was also studied by varying these parameters. The maximum bending moment
calculated for each leg was recorded for each combination of horizontal and vertical
shear strengths.

4.1.

CLAY FOUNDATION

The following results relate to foundation conditions for purely clay foundations.
4.1.1.

LOW FOUNDATION STIFFNESS

The levels of the foundation stiffness used in the analysis are shown below:
Gvv,equivalent elastic shear modulus for vertical displacement =5.14E6 N/m

Ghh,equivalent elastic shear modulus for horizontal displacement =3.87E5 N/m

Grr,equivalent elastic shear modulus for rotational displacement =2.04E7 Nm

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show a typical result from the static run. It may be seen that the
maximum bending stresses, and therefore bending moments, occur at the top of the
leeward leg at the position of the connection of the hull and leg. The level of bending
moments on the windward legs is about 50% that of the moment on the leeward leg, as
would be expected from the linear static analysis and the two legs sharing the support
applied to the structures deck.
The static analysis included the calculation of the natural frequencies of the structure
with the various foundation properties. The natural frequency for the model with low
foundation stiffness was calculated to be 0.14Hz. This compares with the natural
frequency of 0.67Hz for the model when the spud can is modelled as a simple
supported condition, i.e. zero moment restraint and with infinite restraint against
horizontal movement.

14

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the variation of the bending moment at the top of the
windward legs (node 140) and the leeward leg (node 340), respectively. It may be
noted in general for the windward legs that as the vertical shear strength increases the
calculated bending moment increases and a similar effect is the case for the horizontal
shear strength.
The significant aspect of the variation of the calculated bending moment with regard to
the limit state design is the sensitivity of the moment with the variation in the soil shear
strength. The sensitivity of bending moment is such that an increase in the vertical
shear strength of 67% results in a 1% increase in the bending moment and a 267%
increase in the horizontal shear strength results in a 27% increase in the bending
moment. It is also noted that for the leeward legs the bending moment increases as
the vertical shear strength increases as the vertical shear strength increases, but
decreases as the horizontal shear strength is increased. The sensitivity of the change
of moment is such that a 67% increase in vertical shear strength results in a decrease
of 57% in the bending moment and a 267% increase in horizontal shear strength
results in a 409% decrease in bending moment.
Generally, it may be concluded that there is not a linear variation in the static response
of the levels of the maximum moments at the top of the legs resulting from the variation
of the vertical and horizontal shear strength of the foundations. The degree of variation
in the response is less than the variation in the shear strength.
Table 4.1
Bending moment of member 140, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.137Hz, clay model
b
su (104N/m)
6
(10 N/m)
8
7
6
5
4
3
7.97
9.30
10.6
12.0
13.3

4.23
4.31
4.32
4.29
4.28

4.24
4.33
4.96
4.32
4.31

4.24
4.35
4.37
4.36
4.34

4.26
4.38
4.39
4.25
4.10

4.27
4.21
4.03
3.85
3.69

3.32
3.52
3.40
3.22
3.05

Table 4.2
Bending moment of member 340, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.137Hz, clay model
b
su (104N/m)
6
(10 N/m)
8
7
6
5
4
3
7.97
9.30
10.6
12.0
13.3

7.59
5.57
4.48
3.74
3.27

7.64
5.59
4.49
3.75
3.29

7.69
5.63
4.53
3.81
3.41

15

7.79
5.74
4.74
4.24
3.86

8.20
6.59
5.55
4.99
4.80

12.4
8.96
8.19
8.32
8.97

4.1.2. HIGH FOUNDATION STIFFNESS

The levels of the foundation stiffness used in the analysis are shown below:

Gvv,equivalent elastic shear modulus for vertical displacement =5.14E7 N/m

Ghh,equivalent elastic shear modulus for horizontal displacement =3.87E6 N/m

Grr,equivalent elastic shear modulus for rotational displacement =2.04E8 Nm

As for the case of the low foundation stiffness, the maximum bending moment, and
therefore bending stresses, occurs at the top of the leeward leg at the position of the
connection of the hull and leg.
The static analysis included the calculation of the natural frequencies of the structure
with the various foundation properties. The natural frequency for the model with low
foundation stiffness was calculated to be 0.39Hz. This compares with the natural
frequency of 1.5Hz for the model when the spud-can is modelled as a fully constrained
condition, i.e. a built-in foundation with complete restraint against all linear and
rotational movement.
Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show the variation of the bending moment at the top of the
windward legs (node 140) and the leeward leg (node 340), respectively. It may be
noted in general for the windward legs that as the vertical shear strength increases the
calculated bending moment increases but the opposite effect is the case for the
horizontal shear strength.
The significant aspect of the variation of the calculated bending moment with regard to
the limit state design is the sensitivity of the moment with the variation in the soil shear
strength. The sensitivity of bending moment for the windward legs is such that an
increase in the vertical shear strength of 40% results in a 3% increase in the bending
moment and a 267% increase in the horizontal shear strength results in a 19%
increase in the bending moment. It is also noted that for the leeward legs the bending
moment increases as the vertical shear strength increases as the vertical shear
strength increases, but decreases as the horizontal shear strength is increased. The
sensitivity of the change of moment is such that a 40% increase in vertical shear
strength results in a decrease of 46% in the bending moment and a 267% increase in
horizontal shear strength results in a 36% decrease in bending moment.
Generally, it may be concluded that there is not a linear variation in the static response
of the levels of the maximum moments at the top of the legs resulting from the variation
of the vertical and horizontal shear strength of the foundations. The degree of variation
in the response is less than the variation in the shear strengths

16

Table 4.3
Bending moment of member 140, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.387Hz,clay model
su (104N/m)
b
6
(10 N/m)
8
7
6
5
4
3
6.64
7.97
9.30

4.21
4.36
4.34

4.19
4.36
4.35

4.19
4.36
4.37

4.28
4.39
4.41

4.20
4.41
4.18

3.57
3.82
3.65

Table 4.4
Bending moment of member 340, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.387Hz,clay model
su (104N/m)
b
(106N/m)
8
7
6
5
4
3
6.64
7.97
9.30

4.2.

8.55
5.40
3.97

8.60
5.43
4.00

8.65
5.47
4.04

8.74
5.55
4.15

8.93
5.98
4.82

1.24
7.60
6.21

SAND FOUNDATION

The following results relate to foundation conditions for purely sand foundations. The
stiffness parameters relate to the high levels shown in equ.(3.1). It was found that
running the model with the low stiffness failed to provide results.
Equation (3.2) shows the elastic-plastic model, i.e. the yield surface, used in this study
to relate the forces applied to the spud can. The two governing coefficients that
determine the geometric shape of the yield function are L1 and L2. Reasonable ranges
of the coefficients were included in the model and a number of computer runs
preformed to calculate the variation in the maximum moment resulting from a variation
of the coefficients. The results are shown in Tables 4.5 and 4.6.
It may be seen that there is very little variation of the moments at the tops of the
windward and leeward legs for the chosen ranges of the coefficients. The sensitivities
of the calculated bending moments were such that for the windward legs there was a
decrease in the level of the calculated moment of less than 1% of an increase of 100%
in L1 and a similar decrease corresponding to and increase of 20% in L2.

L2
0.5
0.6

Table 4.5
Bending moment of member 140, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.387, sand
L1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
4.21
4.18

4.21
4.18

4.21
4.19

17

4.21
4.19

4.21
4.19

0.5
4.22

Table 4.6
Bending moment of member 340, (unit=108Nm), f = 0.387, sand model

L2
0.5
0.6

0.9

0.8

8.03
7.58

8.00
7.55

7.97
7.52

18

L1

0.7

0.6

0.5

7.94
7.49

7.90
7.46

7.87

5.

5.1.

LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

This section considers the response of the simplified model to dynamic loading. The
form of the loading is shown in Figure 5.5 where it may be seen that it consists of
regular harmonic displacements applied at node 99999. In fact the loading used in this
section is the application of harmonically varying values of load with a specified
maximum amplitude. The load values are arranged to build up from zero to the
maximum value over about 15 cycles. This avoids the complexities of the transient
dynamic responses at the beginning of the analyses.
The results presented here are from two conditions of loading on a pinned model,
introduced in the previous Section that has a fundamental frequency of 0.67Hz. The
objective is to calculate the dynamic amplification factor in terms of the amplitudes of
the dynamic movements of the structure. The magnitudes of the maximum moment
are also calculated.
The results from the pin-ended model are complemented by corresponding results from
the simplified model supported on a clay foundation. The stiffness of the foundation
has been chosen so that this model has a fundamental natural frequency close to that
of the pin-ended model. The objectives are to determine the form of the non-linear
dynamic response and to enquire if there is a correspondence with the dynamic
amplification factor of the pinned model and the model with plastic clay foundation.
The forcing frequency for the dynamic loading was 0.71Hz that is close to the
fundamental frequencies of the models with pinned supports and that with a clay
foundation, i.e. 0.67Hz and 0.69Hz. Thus, there is a significant response of the models
because of resonance.
5.2.

CASES 1 AND 2

5.2.1. CASE 1
In this numerical experiment the amplitude of the applied loading was small to ensure
as much as possible small levels of soil yielding and therefore essentially linear
dynamic response.
Figure 5.2 shows the dynamic movements of the point of load application of the model
with simply supported foundations. It may be seen that the amplitude of the
movements quickly builds up to about 20mm and then reduces slightly to about 18mm
steady state conditions. It is not clear why the over-shot occurs but it may simply be a
function of the rate of increase in the dynamic load amplitudes.
Since the bottom of the legs in this form of the model are prevented from translational
movement and the deck is modelled as a rigid structure, it is expected that the
maximum movements generated at the junction of the legs and the deck will have the
same maximum amplitudes for the windward and leeward legs. This is indeed the
case as shown in Figures 5.7 and 5.8 where, again, it is seen that a small over-shoot of
the steady-state level of maximum moment occurs at the early stage in the analysis.
The quasi-static application of the load level used in the dynamic analysis results in an
elastic response for the model with simply supported foundations for the moment at the
connections of all legs with the deck of 2.65 x 107Nm. Comparison of the maximum

19

moment in Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show that the dynamic effect is to increase the
moments to a value of 6.8 x 107Nm.
Thus it can be interpreted that the dynamic amplification factor for maximum moment in
the simply supported model is about 2.6. That is
DAF = 2.6.
5.2.2. CASE 2
Figure 5.9 shows the dynamic response of the model with a stiff clay foundation and
subjected to harmonically varying loading at 0.71Hz compared to the fundamental
frequency of 0.69Hz calculated for the structure treated as being on an elastic
foundation with the prescribed foundation stiffness, i.e.
Gvv = 2.5 x 108N/m

Gvv = 2.0 x 107N/m

Gvv = 1.5 x 109N/m

Poisson Ratio = 0.2.

The plastic foundation properties are specified to be:
Su = 7 x 104N/m

b = 9.3 x 107.

It is seen in Figure 5.9 that the displacements of the point of application of the loading
are progressively increasing, even after over 70 cycles of load application. It is also
evident that the mean value of the displacements is varying with time. It seems that
the model is moving bodily in the direction of the loading be about 1.4mm after
100secs. of loading. The amplitude of the dynamic response is 3.4mm.
Figure 5.10 shows the movements of the leeward leg in the direction of the loading.
This clearly shows a translation of 1mm in the direction of the +ve loading together with
a dynamic movement of 0.75mm.
Prior to initiating the dynamic loading, the model was pre-loaded by its self-weight so
that there was an initial vertical deformation of the clay under the spud-can of about
0.52m. Figures 5.11 and 5.12 show the vertical movement of the spud-cans during the
application of the dynamic horizontal loading for the windward and leeward legs,
respectively. It may be seen that there is a progressive vertically downward settling of
the foundation such that after 70 cycles of loading it has reached about 16mm. This is
very small compared to the initial pre-load settlement.
The dynamic variations of the moments at the junctions of the windward and leeward
legs with the deck are shown in Figures 5.13 and 5.14, respectively. The maximum
magnitudes are reasonably close, i.e. 12x106Nm for the leeward leg (node 340) and
10x106Nm for the windward legs. The differences in signs results from the orientation
of the finite element axes on the models of the legs. The corresponding moments
calculated using the static application of the loading was 31.7x106Nm (node 340) and
27.2x106Nm (node 140). This gives an apparent dynamic amplification factor of 0.35
(node 340) and 0.37 (node 140).
DAF = 0.35 (windward legs)
DAF = 0.37 (leeward legs)

5.3.

CASES 3 AND 4

Figures 5.15 to 5.23 present results from the application of a significantly increased
horizontal dynamic loading magnitude, by ten times, to the models with simply
supported legs and for the plastic purely clay foundation.

20

5.3.1. CASE 3
Figure 5.11 shows the variation of the horizontal movement of the model at the point of
application of the load. It may be seen that the displacements build up very quickly to a
steady state value of about 0.24m. The bending moments in the windward and
leeward legs at the position of attachment to the deck are both equal to about 0.8
x108Nm. The maximum amplitudes in Figures 5.16 and 5.17 show an increase of
about 11.8 compared to the corresponding values in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. This implies
the dynamic amplification factor is about 3, i.e. very similarto the DAF for the model
excited by a relative smaller load.
The calculations show, as would be expected, that the DAF is not significantly affected
by the loading level and is related to the damping and the correspondence between the
excitation frequency of the loading and the natural frequency of the structure.

5.3.2. CASE 4
Figures 5.18 to 5.23 show the results of running the simplified model with a clay plastic
foundation and an increased horizontal dynamic loading.
Figure 5.18 shows the horizontal movement at the position of the load application. It
may be seen that there is a gradual increase in the magnitudes of the dynamic
horizontal movement of the node representing the point of load application. At the end
of about 71 cycles of loading the amplitudes were still increasing but at a fairly slow
rate. At that stage the loading point had a dynamic movement of 71mm. However,
the point, i.e. node 9999, had translated bodily a distance of 200mm.
This body horizontal translation is also exemplified in the case of the feet of the
windward legs as shown in Figure 5.19. These feet are moving dynamically with a
maximum magnitude of 41mm and had translated horizontally a distance of 254mm.
Figures 5.20 and 5.21 show the vertical movements of the windward and leeward feet,
respectively. It may be seen that there is some vertical dynamic oscillation of the feet,
but the main movement is vertically downward. In other words, at the start of the
application of the dynamic horizontal loading the feet had penetrated a distance of
about 520mm due to the initial self-weight and pre-load. At the end of about 70 cycles
of loading the foot had penetrated approximately another 440mm. Thus the effect of
the horizontal rocking of the structure due to the dynamic loading was to cause the clay
to yield progressive and displace from under the feet thus allowing the structure to
sink into the seabed. It is evident from the shape of the curves that applying more
cycles of loading to the model would cause further increase in the vertical downward
movement of the cans, but the rate of increase of the depth of movement is
decreasing.
The moments of the windward and leeward legs at the position of attachment to the
deck are shown in Figures 5.18 and 5.19, respectively. It may be seen that the
moments vary dynamically in a similar manner to the applied dynamic loading. There is
initially a very rapid increase in the maximum magnitude of the moments but after
about 20 cycles of loading a steady state condition is attained.
The maximum moment shown in Figure 5.22 for the windward leg (node 140) is
1.91x108Nm. This corresponds to the moment 2.72x108Nm calculated by applying the
maximum load value in a quasi-static manner.
Thus the apparent dynamic
amplification factor is less than unity, i.e. DAF = 0.7.
The maximum moment shown in Figure 5.23 for the leeward leg (node 340) is
2.0x108Nm. This corresponds to the moment 3.17x108Nm calculated by applying the
maximum load value in a quasi-static manner.
Thus the apparent dynamic
amplification factor is less than unity, i.e.
DAF = 0.63.

21

6.

6.1.

NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The complexity introduced into the analysis of the response of jack-up structures to
applied environmental forces results from the dynamic aspect of the loading. Fixed
structures, whether predominantly steel or concrete, are attached to the seabed with
long piles. Although some flexibility exists in the piles the analysis of the response of
the fixed structures is reasonably considered from a quasi-static viewpoint. This results
also from the natural frequencies of the fixed structures being well separated from the
forcing frequencies of the environmental forces.
The relative light weight, in comparison to the majority of fixed structures, of jack-up
structures has the effect of bringing the natural frequencies of the loading and the
structure closer and making the calculation of the response much more complicated.
The determination of adequate safety levels in fixed structures has been the subject of
research and analysis over many years. The application of limit state and load
resistance factored design has been developed successfully as a result of the work.
Essentially, the approach has been to determine the failure modes of the structure and
to determine the statistic of failure in response to statistical variation in the applied
loading, usually wave forces. The failure mode in the linear analysis has been
modelled as the failure of a significant element in the structure, either by excessive
yielding or buckling. The factors to be used in the design analysis of actual structures
have been determined by requiring that the onset of the failure mode occurs with a
sufficiently low probability for given loading statistics.
Hand-in-hand with the development of the structural analysis, the gathering of
environmental data has progressed significantly in recent years. There is now a
confidence that the loads that will be applied to fixed structures over their operating
lifetime can be calculated to a satisfactory degree of accuracy. Nevertheless, research
continues with a growing interest in the occurrence of, and loading from very large
waves.
There have also been developments in the ultimate response of structures to
environmental loading. It is recognised that the failure modes used in the statistical
analysis of fixed structures are not the ultimate states of the structures. The structures
can continue to function and carry increasing loading after the occurrence of yielding or
buckling in one of the members. Non-linear quasi-static analysis shows clearly that the
ultimate state of a structure results from yielding or buckling over a number of structural
members and depending on the geometry of the structures and the loading, the failure
may be sudden, i.e. brittle, or gradual, i.e. ductile.
The level of the loading that causes the ultimate failure state is usually called the push
over load. The process of failure is considered to be quasi-static and essentially the
loading is modelled as being applied over a sufficiently long time that the structure can
react to the load. Analysis of typical forms of fixed structures have shown that the
levels of the push-over loads provide an overall factor, typically, of 2 to 3 on the design
loading that has been prescribed on the basis of the LRFD approach.
Thus the application of the quasi-static approach to fixed structure design is considered
to be satisfactory. The aspects that are considered in the design analysis are:
the maximum level of environmentally applied loading during a prescribed
period, usually well in excess of the operating life of the structure,

22

 the forces engendered in the structural members due to the environmental

forces,
comparison of the member forces in comparison with the allowable levels
calculated using the member geometry and material properties, and the
appropriate design factors,
sometimes, carrying out a non-linear quasi-static analysis of the structure to
determine its push-over response to the applied loading.
A factor of great importance resulting from the validity of quasi-static analysis of fixed
structures is that it is relatively simple and straightforward to identify the ultimate failure
modes and the structural aspects that contribute to the failure. The effect of foundation
stiffness and soil failure, i.e. the soil-pile interaction, can validly be linearised and
incorporated in the push-over calculations. The great history during the past two
hundred years of linear and quasi-static analysis provides a basis for the interpretation
of fixed structure analysis. The more recent development of non-linear analysis, both
material properties and deformation geometry, also has a valid and straightforward
background for interpretation.
The analysis of jack-up structures is intrinsically non-linear and dynamic. The
theoretical background for non-linear dynamic analysis is at a much more limited state
for the interpretation of analysis results to provide generalised conclusions and
guidance for structural design. Indeed, it is only fairly recently that non-linear dynamic
analysis can be carried out for more than one or two degrees of freedom describing the
structural deformation geometry. The advent of computers with large and fast
processing power enables non-linear analyses to be carried out for specific conditions.
With regards to the jack-up structures considered here, the specific conditions could
relate to:
the geometry of the structure
the dynamic application of the environmental loading
the dynamic relationship with the dynamics of the loading
the history of environmental load
the material non-linear properties
the non-linear structural response of the applied loading, i.e. onset of local
material failure or buckling
the non-linear soil-structure interaction at the base (spud can) of the structure
the history of soil response from onset of environmental loading.
It is evident there are a large number of possible interactions, such as the effect of the
structural dynamics on the dynamic levels of the environmental loading, and also of
responses of the structure in response to the loading. It is feasible to carry out
individual non-linear dynamic analysis to determine the history of structural response
for a given history of dynamic loading, but the interpretation of the results to provide
generic design guidance that would enable the evaluation of the levels of safety is very
difficult.
As has been stated above in Section 4, the present study has been carried out using a
simplified model to enable a large number of non-linear dynamic runs to be carried out.
The objective is to generate data for a variety of conditions of the loading, and soil
response. The model includes non-linearity in the structural response from the
viewpoint of the deformed geometry of the model legs, but does not include material
non-linearity. Also to maintain simplicity, the non-linear interaction between the

23

structure and the loading is not included. The interaction is, for example, caused by
the movement of the structure relative to the fluid constituting the waves passing
through the jack-up structure. Nevertheless, even with the simplifications enabled by
the model, the number of dynamic conditions remains large.
The objective of the present study is to investigate the possible practical approaches to
developing fully non-linear design analyses of jack-up structures, akin to the push-over
analysis that is presently used in the deign of fixed structures. The investigation is
concerned with
determining the variety of responses that may result in fully non-linear analyses
of actual jack-up structures and
considering what strategy should be taken to ensure the analyses are valid and
investigating what methodology could be taken in the interpretation of the
results could be taken to provide an understanding of the levels of safety when
using linearised dynamic analyses or quasi-static analysis during design
calculations.

6.2.

OUTLINE DESCRIPTION OF NON-LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

The approach taken in the present study therefore has been to carry out non-linear
analysis using a simplified structural model dynamic. The structural model and the
foundation model have been described above, Section 3.
The model and the conditions analysed are not intended to represent any particular
jack-up structure. Similarly the mathematical models of the foundations incorporated in
the analyses are not intended to represent any particular seabed condition. The
purpose of the modelling is to enable a variety of conditions of possible environmental
loading and seabed soil/foundation responses to be calculated and form the basis for
interpreting a possible strategy for more realistic fully non-linear jack-up structure
analyses.
The following describes the generation of the results presented in the next Section.
1. The dynamic analysis is carried out using a time-step approach with a
sufficiently small time between each step to ensure accuracy and stability of the
solution.
2. Since the objective in this section is to provide data for comparison of the
effects of a variety of loading and foundation forms it was decided to maintain
the maximum magnitude of the loading as a constant.
3. Carry out analyses for a variety of dynamic loading varying from harmonically
varying loading close to and remote from the natural frequencies of the model,
i.e. resonance and non-resonance.
4. Carry out analyses with randomly generated load amplitudes with maximum
values limited to those applied in the harmonic form of loading.
5. Apply similar types of loading to the model with different foundation properties
resulting from changing the modelled soil properties.
The model has been run for about 17 different combinations of types and magnitudes
of loading and foundation properties. The results abstracted from the computer
analyses for presentation here are:
1. The displacement at the point of application of the loading (node 9999)
2. The vertical displacement (downward) at the bottom of the windward legs (U2 at

24

node 101).
3. The vertical displacement (downward) at the bottom of the leeward leg (U2 at
node 301).
4. The axial displacement (in the direction of the loading) at the bottom of the
windward leg (U1 at node 101).
5. The axial displacement (in the direction of the loading) at the bottom of the
leeward leg (U1 at node 301).
6. The moment in the windward leg at the top of the junction of the leg and deck
(node 140).
7. The moment in the leeward leg at the top of the junction of the leg and deck
(node 340).

6.3.

RESULTS

The following describes results from the various computed runs using the simplified
model.
The following is a presentation and discussion of a series of calculations that provide a
comparison one with another. The amplitude of the excitation force is the same in
every case considered, as is the level of damping. The intention of the analysis cases
is to investigate the effects of the results due to variations in:

Natural frequency of the structural model

Foundation properties, including elastic and non-linear plastic

Harmonic and random loading.

In each analysis case the result presented are for

Dynamic displacement U1 at Node 9999, i.e. the horizontal displacement at the

point of load application

Dynamic displacement U1 at Node 101, i.e. the horizontal movement at the

base of the windward leg

Dynamic displacement U1 at Node 301, i.e. the horizontal movement at the

base of the leeward legs

Dynamic displacement U2 at Node 101, i.e. the vertical movement at the base
of the windward leg

Dynamic displacement U2 at Node 301, i.e. the vertical movement at the base
of the leeward legs

Dynamic moment SM1 at element 140, i.e. the time variations of the maximum
bending moment at the junction of the windward leg and the rigid deck

Dynamic moment SM1 at element 340, i.e. the time variations of the maximum
bending moment at the junction of the leeward legs and the rigid deck

6.3.1.

ELASTIC FOUNDATIONS

6.3.1.1 Case 5 T=2secs; f=0.137Hz

The stiffness of the foundation is set to provide a natural frequency of 0.13Hz, i.e. a
natural period of 7.3secs. The period of the forcing function is 2secs, so there is a

25

significant separation between the forcing and the response frequencies.

The results for the horizontal displacements at the point of load application, Figure 6.1,
show a symmetrical response in terms of the positive and negative directions of
movements. There is a clear beat effect that results from the interaction between the
frequency of the applied load and the natural frequency of the structural model.
The horizontal movements at the base of the windward leg, Figure 6.2, also shows a
symmetrical beat effect whereas the symmetry is not evident in the horizontal
movements of the leeward legs, Figure 6.3.
The vertical movements of the windward and windward legs, Figures 6.4 and 6.5 show
symmetrical positive and negative movements about the initially pre-loaded position.
The beat effect of the horizontal movements of the deck and the corresponding
movements of the bases of the legs results in a quite complex form of dynamic
variation in the moments at the tops of the legs, Figures 6.6 and 6.7. It is significant
that the magnitudes of the dynamic response of the moments at the leeward legs are
about 40% greater than the corresponding moments at the windward legs.
Thus, even for quite a simple model with an elastic foundation the dynamic response is
quite complex.
6.3.1.2 Case 6 T=2secs; f=0.387Hz
The stiffness of the clay foundation in the computer model was increased to reduce the
period of the natural vibration of the model to 2.6 secs. This brings the natural period
closer to the period of load application, i.e. 2 secs, which has the effect of increasing
the effect of resonance in the response of the model compared to Case 5. The results
from the Case 6 calculations are presented in Figure 6.8 to 6.14.
Figure 6.8 shows the dynamic response of the deck, i.e. the position of load
application. It may be seen that the maximum amplitude of response is about 20% of
that in Case 5. This, of course, results from the increase in the stiffness of the soil
foundation resulting in a reduction in defection by a factor of about 5.5. An increase of
soil stiffness by a factor of about 10 is required to cause an increase in the structural
model natural frequency of about 2.8. It may be seen, by comparison of Figures 6.8 6.10 with the corresponding Case 5 results, Figures 6.1 6.3, that the beat effect still
occurs in Case 6 but is less evident. The horizontal deformations of the base of the
legs, sitting on the elastic soil, are symmetrical with respect to positive and negative
direction of movements. The vertical movements at the bases of the legs, Figure 6.11
and 6.212 show a lesser beat effect than for Case 5, and the movements of the
leeward legs are slightly greater than for the windward legs.
It is interesting to note that the dynamic variations of the moments at the top of the
windward and leeward legs, Figures 6.13 and 6.14, respectively, are significantly
different from those in Case 5, see Figures 6.6 and 6.7. Whereas for Case 5 there was
quite a distinct beat effect and symmetry in the response plots, with the systems closer
to resonance, i.e. Case 6, the beat effect is diminished and the symmetry is not
evident. The magnitudes of the maximum moments in Case 6 are about 30% of the
corresponding values in Case 5.
Thus, it is difficult to simply extrapolate the variation of the moment value from one
case to another because the phase differences between the dynamic responses of the
deck and the bases of the legs can be quite different as the system parameters are
altered.
6.3.1.3 Case 7 T=3secs; f=0.387Hz
In this case the stiffness of the soil is the same as in Case 2, but the frequency of the
harmonic application of the loading has been reduced so that the frequency of
response and excitation are brought closed together. The results are presented in
Figure 6.15 to 6.21.
Comparison of Figures 6.8 (Case 6) and 6.15 (Case 7) show that decreasing the
frequency of the load application results in a significant increase, a factor of about 3.25,

26

in the magnitude of the displacements at the position of load application. This results
from the higher level of resonance in the system in Case 7 than in Case 6. It is
noticeable in Figure 6.15 that the beat effect is not evident as it was in Cases 5 and 6.
Figures 6.15 and 6.17 show the horizontal movements of the bases of the windward
and leeward legs, respectively. Comparison with the corresponding results in Case 6,
Figures 6.9 and 6.10, show that there has been an increase by a factor of about 2.8
that is attributed to the resonance effect. The difference between the larger increase in
the amplitude of the horizontal movement of the deck compared to the base of the legs
is attributed to the effects of the dynamic reaction of the legs themselves.
Figure 6.10 shows the vertical movement of the base of the windward leg. It may be
seen by comparison with Figure 6.11 (Case 6) that the maximum vertical movements
for Case 7 have increased by about a factor of 1.6. A similar effect is noted for the
leeward legs, see Figures 6.19 and 6.12.
The critical aspect, from a structural failure viewpoint, is the effect of the magnitude of
the moments at the top of the legs resulting from the resonance caused by altering the
frequency of load application. Figure 6.20 shows a maximum magnitude of the
moment of 1.35 x 108Nm. This compares to a value of 0.38 x 108Nm in Figure 6.13,
i.e. an increase of a factor of 3.6 for Case 6 to Case 7. A similar effect is noted for the
leeward legs, see Figure 6.21 compared to Figure 6.14.
It is evident that the dynamic nature of the response of the model jack-up structure
introduces significant complexities compared to a quasi-static form of load response.
This aspect is not a new feature in mechanical engineering but the non-linear dynamic
response to variations in the soil stiffness, even for a linear elastic soil model can be
quite unpredictable using quasi-static analysis approaches. The advantages of using a
simplified structural system in the present parametric study is evident, even from the
discussion of the results of Cases 5 to 7 since for a fully non-linear structure with
practical dements, the calculations for the effects of variations in soil and loading
parameters could be prohibitively expensive in computer and engineering time.
6.3.1.4
Case 8 T=random; f=0.387Hz
The loading applied in Cases 5 to 7 to the simplified model has been regular
harmonically varying amplitudes. This form of loading can lead to resonance effects,
as shown in Case 7. However, a more realistic form of loading is one in which the form
is essentially random, representing the forces applied to jack-up structures from waves
passing through the structure. The level of the applied load is dependent on the height
of the wave that in turn is dependent, to some extent, on the frequency of occurrence
of the wave height. The magnitude of the loading applied to the model structure in the
present Case has been generated randomly, a process in which the occurrence of the
waves and the frequency of application of loading has been biased towards small
rather than large waves. The result presented in this Section therefore represent a
dynamic response of the structural model to the randomly applied loading with a
maximum amplitude levels set to be the same as were applied in Cases 5 7. The
results from the calculations are presented in Figures 6.22 6.27. The results are
compared to the corresponding values from Case 6 which has the same soil foundation
stiffness and a lower degree of resonance effect than Case 7.
Figure 6.22 shows the response of the structure at the point of load application. It may
be seen that the variations of the displacement show the random nature of the load
application with localised displacement reversals being superposed on the more
apparently ordered set of variations. The magnitudes of the displacements are
significantly less than the corresponding values in Case 6, see Figure 6.8. The
maximum random displacements are about 0.375 times the Case 6 maximum values.
The level of reduction in the horizontal displacements is not so great; Figure 6.23
shows the maximum randomly generated displacement is 0.12m compared to the
corresponding Case 6 value of 0.175m, shown in Figure 6.9. A similar effect is shown
in Figures 6.24 and 6.10 for the leeward legs.

27

The randomly generated values for the vertical displacements at the bases of the
windward and leeward legs are shown in Figure 6.25 and 6.26. It may be seen by
comparison with Figure 6.11 and 6.12 that the maximum values in Case 8 and Case 6
are quite similar.
The important reaction of the moment at the top of the legs, i.e. at the junction with the
deck, is exemplified in Figure 6.27 for the leeward legs. It may be seen, by comparison
with Figure 6.14, that the magnitude of the maximum randomly generated moments is
about 50% that of Case 6, see Figure 6.14.
Thus, is contrast to the cases of harmonically applied forces, with a constant maximum
magnitude, the moment generated by randomly applied dynamic loading is much
reduced. Indeed, the moment is generally about 30% of the harmonically generated
moment and only occasional spikes increase to about 50%.

6.3.2.
ELASTIC-PLASTIC CLAY FOUNDATIONS
In view of the results from the static loading of various foundations shown in Section 4,
and noting the greater sensitivity of the calculated foundation movements for changes
in soil parameters in clay foundations compared to sand foundations, it was decided in
the present study to concentrate the numerical experiments on models with clay
foundations.
Cases 5 to 9 have considered the moments and displacements generated by a
harmonically applied loads in a model with linear elastic foundation. It was noted that
there the closer the exciting frequency to the natural frequency the greater were the
displacements and moments. This is expected result based on fundamental vibration
theory. The application of more realistic form of loading, i.e. randomly generated
dynamic forces, resulted in a much lower levels of moments than for the cases in which
the harmonically loaded system even in Cases where the resonance effect is likely to
be small.
In the next set of Cases the elastic foundation is replaced by one with elastic-plastic
properties. Such a foundation will have permanent deformation if the forces applied to
the foundation by the bases of the legs are sufficiently large. In this respect the
present Cases differ fundamentally from the elastic foundation where the bases of the
have no permanent rigid body movements.

6.3.2.1 Case 9 T=1sec, f=0.137Hz, foundation parameters su=7x104,

b=9.30x106
This model in this Case has a natural frequency of 0.137Hz giving as natural period of
7.3secs. This is well separated from the period of harmonic loading application, i.e.
1sec. In Case 1 such a condition showed periodic fluctuations in the dynamic
response of the structure, i.e. beat effects. In the results from the present elastic
plastic foundation properties, shown in Figures 6.28 6.34, are less evident.
Figure 6.28 shows the horizontal movements of the point of load application. It may be
seen that there is a permanent displacement of about 0.46m and a variation of 0.07m
about that displacement. The dynamic movement develops during about thirty cycles
of loading and evidently reaches a steady state condition, i.e. there is further increase
in the mean values of the movements.
Figures 6.27 and 6.28 show the horizontal movements of the bases of the legs at the
foundation. There are small rigid body movements of the bases, about 0.04m in
opposite directions for the windward and leeward legs, see Figures 6.29 and 6.30,
respectively.
The vertical movements of the bases of the legs are seen in Figure 6.31 and 6.32 to be
caused initially by the pre-load of the structure and subsequently to increase
incrementally to a small extent due to the dynamic loading.
The moments at the junction of the legs and deck, shown in Figure 6.33 and 6.34, vary

28

in a quite complex manner. The maximum moment in the windward leg is quite small
compared to the moment for the elastic foundation in Case 5, Figure 6.6. There is
seen to be initially a build-up of moment that then reduces to a steady state variation
with an apparent beat effect.
The moments in the leeward legs, Figure 6.34, are relatively much larger than those in
the leeward legs. This is probably due to the base of the windward leg incrementally
moving in the same direction as the rigid body movement of the deck, whereas the
bases of the leeward legs move incrementally in the opposite direction to the deck.
Nevertheless, the maximum moments reach steady state conditions after about thirty
cycles of load applications.
Case 10 T=1.5sec, f=0.137Hz, foundation parameters su=7x104,
b=9.30x106
The results from this Case are presented in Figures 6.35 to 6.41. Essentially the
differences in the results from Case 9 to Case 10 are caused by a decrease in the
frequency of load application of the latter. The discussion in this Section is based on a
comparison of the results from Cases 9 and 10 to discern the effect of the decrease in
loading frequency. The change of loading frequency is such as to tend to cause
greater resonance in the system.
Figure 6.35 shows the cyclic variation of the horizontal displacement of the deck of the
model jack-up structure. It is evident that in comparison with Figure 6.28, the change
of loading frequency has resulted in a doubling of the displacement from Case 9 to
Case 10. The effect on the horizontal movements of the bases of the legs is greater.
Comparison of Figures 6.36 with 6.29, and Figure 6.37 with 6.30, show that there has
been a large increase in the level of permanent displacements in the soil-base
geometry. There has also been an increase in the level of the cyclic variations in the
horizontal movements at the bases about these permanent displacements. A notable
feature is that, in contrast to Case 9, here the permanent movements of the bases are
in the same direction, i.e. in direction of +ve direction of the load.
The change in the vertical movements, see Figures 6.38 and 6.39, of the bases of the
legs are very much smaller tan is the situation of the horizontal movements. It is
evident from these figures that the permanent and oscillatory movements are greater
ion the leeward leg bases tan for the windward leg base.
Figure 6.40 and 6.41 show the moments induced in the windward and leeward legs,
respectively, at the junction with the deck. It may be seen that the levels of moment
have increased significantly due to the change of loading frequency, by up to a factor of
four for the maximum moments. The significant aspect underlying this change form
Case 9 is that the rigid body movements of the bases of the legs in comparison with
the corresponding movement of the deck has resulted in larger moments by a factor of
about of about four, in the leeward legs compared to the windward legs.
Thus a moderate change in loading frequency, by 50%, has resulted in large changes
in the dynamic response of the structure, both in terms of displacements and moments
in the legs.
6.3.2.2

Case 11 T=2sec, f=0.137Hz, foundation parameters su=7x104,

b=9.30x106
The primary change in this Case is that the frequency of the loading has been
decreased compared to Case 9. It is evident from the results shown in Figure 6.42 that
the movements at the point of load application have not reached a steady state
conditions even after over forty cycles of load application. The rigid body movements
of the deck and the level of oscillatory movements are much greater than are the
situations for Case 9, see Figure 6.28.
The same remarks apply to the horizontal movements of the bases of the legs, shown
in Figures 6.43 and 6.44. There is an interesting effect shown in these figure in that the
permanent deformations initially moved in the negative direction and then, after more
6.3.2.3

29

cycles of loading, reversed direction.

The vertical permanent and oscillatory
movements of the bases of the legs resulting from the harmonically varying applied
loading are shown in Figure 6.45 and 6.46. It is evident that the latter figure indicates
that the leeward legs are continuing to have increasing values of permanent
movements after forty cycles of load application. The windward leg on the other hand
is seen in Figure 6.45 to have reached a steady state of permanent displacement.
The effects of these movements are seen in the moment values shown in Figures 6.47
and 6.48. The windward leg has large values of dynamic moment with virtually zero
mean value, Figure 6.47, whereas the windward legs have a steadily increasing mean
value of moment, Figure 6.48. The maximum value of the dynamic moment in all legs
is about the same.
Case 12 T=2sec, f=0.137Hz, foundation parameters su=3x104,
b=7.97x106
Case 7 had an elastic-plastic foundation with a specified shear strength and bearing
strength defined by su=7x104, b=9.30x106. In the present Case the parameters are
modified to su=3x104, b=7.97x106, essentially reducing the overall yield strength of the
clay foundation. Two cases with different levels of foundation elastic stiffness have
been considered in the calculations, the result from which are discussed below in
Cases 12 and 13.
The frequency of loading and the foundation stiffness in the present Case correspond
to those in Case 11. This enables a comparison to be made of the effects caused by a
change in the yield strength of the foundation.
Figure 6.49 shows the response of the deck to the harmonically varying values of
applied loading. It may be seen that initially there is a relatively high rate of increase of
the body movement of the deck. The rate of increase reduces after about 20 cycles of
loading but continues to increase and has not attained a steady state even after about
one hundred cycles of loading. The magnitude of displacement is about one-third that
of the Case 11 foundation.
Figure 6.50 shows the variation of the horizontal movement of the base of the
windward leg. It is evident that the dynamic response is very complex with a
combination of oscillatory movements superposed on non-linear developments of body
movement of the base.
Figures 6.51 and 6.52 show the vertical dynamic displacements of the base of the
windward and leeward legs, respectively. It may be seen that there is a steady
development of the vertical displacement with relatively small oscillations. This is as if
the bases were digging themselves in to the seabed. This increase in embedment of
the bases of the legs provides greater horizontal resistance and may explain the results
shown in Figure 6.50.
The results for the calculated moments, shown in Figures 6.53 and 6.54, are quite
complex. It is evident that the maximum moment in the windward leg has increased to
a small degree compared to the corresponding Case 11 results, Figure 6.47, but in
contrast to the figure, the results for Case 12 show that there is a development of a
mean moment. On the other hand, the steady state conditions of the leeward legs, see
Figure 6.54, shows no development of a mean value of moment.
6.3.2.4

6.3.2.5

Case 13 T=2sec, f=0.387Hz, foundation parameters su=3x104,

b=7.97x106

This Case provides a basis for assessing the effects of having stiffer soil foundation
and also the effect of making the natural frequency of the structural model closer to the

30

exciting frequency thus increasing the probability of a resonance effect. The results
from the calculations are shown in Figures 6.55 to 6.61.
The results are very similar in form to those discussed above for Case 12. The
magnitudes of the displacements and moments are generally slightly larger, which
results from a combination of the increase elastic stiffness of the foundation and the
resonance effect.
6.3.2.6 Case 14 T=3sec, f=0.387Hz, foundation parameters su=3x104,
b=7.97x106
In this Case the relationship between the forcing frequency and the natural frequency
of the structural model is slightly closer to the forcing frequency than for Case 13,
except that now the forcing frequency is less than the natural frequency. The results
from the calculations are shown in Figures 6.62 to 6.67. It may be expected that there
would be a close similarity between the results for Cases 13 and 14. However,
comparison of the results does not bear out this expectation.
Figure 6.63 shows the horizontal movement at the point of load applications and
corresponds to Figure 6.55 for Case 13. It may be seen that a steady state condition is
not attained and the rigid body movement and maximum displacements for Case 14
are about one-third of the corresponding values for Case 13.
The horizontal movements at the bases of the legs in Case 10, see Figures 6.63 and
6.64, are quite different in form and magnitude from those calculated for Case 13, see
Figures 6.56 and 6.57. The only similarity seems to be that in both Cases the bases of
the legs develop mean movements that are both in the same direction.
The vertical movements of the bases of the legs, Figures 6.66 and 6.67, show a degree
of digging in to the soil foundation to a level reasonably similar to that in Case 13.
The variation of the moments calculated for Case 14 are shown in Figures 6.66 and
6.67 and may be compared to Figures 6.60 and 6.61 to assess the effects of a change
in the exciting frequency. It may be seen that increasing the exciting frequency by 50%
increases the range of the maximum moments in the windward legs by a factor of
about 2.5. A similar increase is noted in the maximum moments in the leeward legs.

Case 15 T=2sec, f=0.387Hz, foundation parameters su=7x104,

b=9.3x106
The effect of changing the foundation yield conditions for models with the same
foundation stiffness excitation frequency is considered here by comparing results from
Case 9 and the results from Case 15, shown in Figures 6.68 to 6.74.
Figure 6.68 shows a pattern of a generally increasing mean movement of the point of
load application, i.e. the rigid body movement of the deck in the positive direction. At
some stage there is a reversal of this trend resulting in the mean displacement
reducing before establishing a steady state condition after about forty cycles of loading.
The mean movement is much less than the corresponding movements developed in
Case 13, see Figure 6.55.
The horizontal movements of the bases of the legs move generally in a negative
direction, relative to the positive direction of loading. All the bases move a similar
distance and seem to have attained a steady state. This is in contrast to the calculated
results for Case 13 in which although both legs also move in the same direction, that
direction is positive, i.e. opposite to that for Case 15.
The vertical movements of the bases of the legs show a familiar digging-in effect.
The magnitudes of the moments for Case 15 are shown in Figures 6.73 and 6.74. The
maximum values seem in all legs to have attained a steady state condition. The
magnitude of the range of the maximum moments for the windward leg is quite similar
to that for Case 9, see Figure 6.60. The magnitude of the range of maximum moments

6.3.2.6

31

for the leeward legs, shown in Figure 6.73, is similar to that for Case9, see Figure 6.61.

However, the maximum value of the moment for Case 15 is twice that for Case 9.

Thus, by altering the yield condition of the foundation there are significant effects on

the response of the model to harmonically varying applied loading.

Case 16 T=random, f=0.387Hz, foundation parameters su=7x104,

b=9.3x106
Case 15 shows the results of an excitation frequency of 0.5Hz on a model with a
specific foundation stiffness and yield condition. Case 16 presents the results from
calculations of the dynamic response for the same structural model and foundation but
in this case with randomly applied loading.
This is a more practically relevant form of loading and the purpose of this case is to
provide a basis for the comparison with corresponding values form Case 15 to assess
the significance of using harmonically varying loading in design analysis. The results
are shown in Figures 6.75 to 6.81.
Figure 6.75 shows the variation of the horizontal movements at the point of load
application. It may be seen there is a general growth of the movement in the positive
direction. After about 50 secs. the rate of growth becomes zero. In comparison with
figure 6.68 for Case 15, a similar phenomenon seems to occur there, followed by a
general reduction in the level of displacement.
Comparison of the horizontal displacement of the bases of the legs of the modelled
structure seem to have quite random movements, see Figures 6.76 and 6.77. These
patterns are quite different from those shown in Figures 6.69 and 6.70 generated by
coherent harmonically varying loading.
It is interesting that the degree of digging-in of the bases occurs for randomly applied
loading, Figures 6.78 and 6.79, as it does for the harmonically varying loading, see
Figures 6.71 and 6.72. The degree of vertically downward movements of the bases of
the legs are less for the randomly applied loading than for the harmonic loading.
The dynamic variation of the moments generated by randomly varying loading are
shown in Figures 6.80 and 6.81 for the windward and leeward legs, respectively. It is
evident that the patterns of the moments plotted against time are very different from
those generated by harmonically varying loading, see Figures 6.73 and 6.74. It is
noticeable that the maximum moment attained for the windward leg, Figure 6.80, is
about half that calculated for the harmonically varying loading, Figure 6.73. On the
other hand, the maximum moments calculated for the leeward legs have very similar
values for the random and harmonic forms of loading.

6.3.2.7

6.3.3. ELASTIC-PLASTIC SAND FOUNDATIONS

Two Cases are considered in this Section for the structural model with foundations
composed of sand with the parameters described in Section 3. The elastic stiffness of
the foundation are maintained constant and from one Case to the other of harmonic
application of loading the period is reduced from 0.5sec to 0.33sec, the latter being
close to a resonance condition.
6.3.3.1 Case 17 T=2sec, f= 0.387, L1 =1, L2 =0.5
The elastic stiffness of the foundation has been prescribed to be the same as that in
Case 15, as has the frequency of the harmonically varying loading. Thus in the present
Case the intention is to compare results from the elastic-plastic clay and sand
foundations to determine what differences may exist.
Figure 6.84 shows the movements of the point of application of the loading. It may be
seen there is a steady increase in the level of the mean value of the displacement, i.e.

32

the rigid body translation of the deck. After about 20 cycles of loading the rate of
increase reduces and after about 50 cycles a steady state condition is almost attained.
This form of behaviour is quite different from that calculated for Case 15, see Figure
6.68. In that Case the horizontal movement increases and then after about 20 cycles
of loading the rate of increases changes sign. The rigid body translation of the deck for
the model on a sand foundation is significantly greater than for the corresponding
model on the clay foundation.
The differences in the horizontal movements at the bases of the legs for the models on
the two types of foundations are also very different in the sand foundation compared to
the clay foundation. The former, shown in Figures 6.83 and 6.84, show a steadily
increasing horizontal rigid body movement of the bases in the positive direction. The
maximum deflections have very similar amplitudes for the windward and leeward legs.
The horizontal movements of the bases resting on the clay foundations, Figures 6.69
and 6.70, show movements in the negative directions with the maximum movements
being about twice that for the sand foundations.
The bases on the legs resting on the sand foundation show a digging-in process,
Figure 6.85 and 6.86, similar to that for the clay foundation, see Figures 6.76 and 6.77.
Despite the differences in the signs of the movements of the deck and the bases, the
moments in the legs at the junctions with the deck, both windward and leeward, show
good agreement for the sand foundation, Figures 6.87 and 6.88, and the clay
foundation, Figures 6.73 and 6.73.
Thus, from the viewpoint of the most important parameter with regard to structural
failure, the results from the calculations of the models on sand and clay foundations are
very similar in magnitude for the specified foundation parameters.
6.3.3.2 Case 18 T=3sec, f= 0.387, L1 =1, L2 =0.5
In this Case the frequency of the applied harmonic loading has been reduced. The
natural frequency of the structural model and foundation are prescribed to the same as
for the model on a clay foundations shown in Case 10.
The results for Case 18 are shown in Figures 6.89 and 6.95.
Comparison of Figures 6.89 and 6.61 shows that the model on a sand foundation
responds to the applied loading in a manner quite similar to the model on a clay
foundation. The major difference is that the model on the sand foundation develops
rigid body translational movements about twice the magnitude of the clay founded
model.
The development of the horizontal movements at the bases of the legs of the sand
founded model is very similar for both the windward and the leeward legs, see Figures
6.90 and 6.91. Comparison with Figures 6.61 and 6.63 shows that the clay founded
model has very similar values of the horizontal movements at the bases of its legs.
The degree of digging-in at the bases of the legs is very similar for the two types of
foundations, compare Figure 6.92 and 6.93 with Figures 6.64 and 6.65.
The similarity of the responses of the models on the two types of foundations extends
also to the moments at the connection of the legs and the decks; compare Figures 6.94
and 6.95 with Figures 6.66 and 6.67.

33

7.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The section presents conclusion drawn from the results of the numerical experiments
and recommendation for developing the initial work reported here.
7.1.

CONCLUSIONS

This section presents conclusions drawn from the results of the numerical experiments
carried out on the simplified systems model comprising the loading, structure and the
foundation. The conclusions are presented in a general context and then with respect
to the detailed results from the experiments.
7.1.1.

GENERAL

The following are general conclusions regarding the conduct of, and results from the
study.
a. It is virtually impossible to carry out full-scale tests on jack-up structures. The
design analysis therefore are based on simplified quasi-static analyses that
incorporate safety factors that have been derived from on the experience of
successful use of jack-up structures in a wide range of locations and
environmental conditions.
The approach here of carrying out numerical
experiments using a generic model of the system composed of the structure, its
loading and foundation very much reduces the engineering and computational
effort in carrying out non-linear analysis of the response of the system to its
environment. The method of numerical experimentation enables the exploration
of a variety of conditions of loading and foundation properties and provides a
basis for preparing an efficient realistic non-linear modelling of full-scale jack-up
structures.
b. The work reported here is a stage in the development of an evaluation of the
levels of safety intrinsic in the design and operation of deep-water jack-up
structures. The results provide insight to the responses of these intrinsically
dynamic structures to their environmental loading and foundations.
c.

Initial tests of the modelling showed that a jack-up structure is dynamically self
correcting from a macro-structure, or system, viewpoint. That is, as the
magnitude of the loading was increased in numerical experiments there is
interaction between the dynamics of the structures and loading, resulting in
yielding of the soil and plastic deformations of the foundation the seems to
prevent a simple form of push-over failure.

d.

The system modelling presented here has concentrated in a generic approach on

the failure mechanisms that are likely to result from overload at the legs/deck
junctions. The results presented in Section 5 and 6 show that the levels of
moments, and hence stresses and mechanical forces on mechanisms attaching
the legs to the deck, generated at the top of the legs are very much dependent on
the non-linear dynamics of the structural system. The accurate evaluation of
these loads and stresses are unlikely to be obtained from quasi-static or
linearised forms of dynamic analysis.

e. A wide variety of cases have been run for static and dynamic conditions of

34

loading. It is concluded from the results that the use of the generic model
provides an efficient method for exploring the sensitivity of jack-up structures to
variations in loading and foundation conditions. The computational method has
been shown to be very effective in coping numerically with the non-linearity of the
clay and sand foundations, the dynamic structural and loading interactions,
including the random loading.
7.1.2.

CONCLUSIONS FROM DETAILED RESULTS

The following present conclusions based on the various Cases, i.e. static, linear and
non-linear dynamic analysis carried as numerical experiments.
a. The static analysis reported in Section 4 shows a non-linear variation induced at
the top of the legs as the strength properties of the foundation soil are varied. It
is concluded that this results from varying degrees of movement of the base of
the legs relative to the deck from one soil property to another. The calculations
carried out with clay foundation properties with low stiffness show that a 67%
increase in vertical compressive strength results in a decrease of 57% in the
bending moments induced, and a 267% increase in horizontal shear strength
results in a 409% decrease in bending moments There is no evident linear
relationship between the variation of moment induced at the top of the legs and
the variation in soil strength properties.
Similar results are noted for calculations carried out using higher values of
foundation stiffness.
It is concluded that increasing the level of vertical compressive strength and
horizontal shear strength of the moments induced at the top of the legs where
they connect to the deck.
b. The quasi-static analysis of the model with a sand foundation showed quite
different results compared to the clay foundation.
It is concluded from these
results presented in Section 4 that varying the factors L1 and L2, defining the
geometry of the yield surface, does not cause any significant variation in the
bending moments in the leg
It was as a result of these calculations for quasi-static loading that it was decided
to base the Cases, i.e. the numerical experiments, on clay foundation since the
dynamic effects are likely to be more non-linear than for the model on sand
foundations.
c. Cases 1 and 2
Numerical experiments were carried out to determine the comparison between
the DAF for and idealised pinned condition at the base of the legs and the
corresponding results for a clay foundation. The DAF was calculated for the
moments at the tops of the legs. The results showed that the DAF for the pinned
condition was 2.6 in comparison to 0.36 for the clay foundation. It is concluded
for the form of modelling reported here that the DAF calculated using pinned
conditions significantly over-estimates the corresponding DAF for more realistic
foundation conditions.
d. Cases 3 and 4
These two numerical experiments are similar to those for Cases 1 and 2 except
that the maximum load is significantly increased. However, the DAF inferred
from Case 3 is the same as for Case 1, i.e. 2.6, as would be expected from the
linear dynamic response of the pinned foundation mode to harmonic varying
loading. The calculated effective DAF for the clay foundation was found to be 0.7
for the windward legs and 0.63 for the leeward legs. It is concluded that even for
large values of applied loading the use of the DAF approach with linearised
dynamic response overestimates the levels of moments Induced at the tops of
the legs.
e. The non-linear dynamic analysis of the various forms of loading and foundation

35

conditions for the generic model of the jack-up structure has resulted in a large
amount of data relevant to the displacements of the deck and bases of the legs
and the moments at the tops of the legs. This last is particularly relevant to the
failure mode of fatigue or ductile failure of the members and mechanical
connection of the deck and legs. The conclusions presented here are, for clarity,
restricted to a consideration of the moment levels induced in the windward and
leeward legs.
The result from the various numerical experiments are
summarised in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1

Summary of results for moments at the tops of the legs

Moment at Node 140 (Windard) Moment at Node 340 (Leeward)

(109 N.m)
Case
(109 N.m)
Maximum Minimum Range Maximum Minimum
Range
5
1.3
-0.6
1.9
1.0
-1.75
2.75
6
0.38
-0.38
0.76
0.38
-0.38
0.76
7
1.35
-1.35
2.70
1.30
-1.35
2.65
8
0.2
-0.22
0.42
9
0.1
-0.06
0.16
-0.16
-0.36
0.20
10
-0.01
0.06
0.07
0.05
-0.17
0.12
11
0.27
-0.13
0.4
-0.2
-1.1
0.9
12
0.04
-0.23
0.27
0.3
-0.25
0.55
13
0.02
-0.25
0.27
0.2
-0.3
0.5
14
0.2
-0.56
0.76
0.7
-0.26
0.96
15
0
0.41
0.41
0
-0.35
0.35
16
0.18
-0.15
0.33
0.19
-0.43
0.62
17
0.04
-0.4
0.44
0.44
-0.05
0.49
18
0.1
-0.61
0.71
0.64
-0.22
0.86

f.

g.

h.

Case 5 has a loading that is about four times greater than the natural frequency
of the model on a fairly low stiffness elastic the foundation. The results show a
significant beat effect with the moments increasing periodically to high peak
values. Case 6 in which the stiffness of the foundation is increased to provide a
closer match between the natural frequency of the model and the frequency of
the applied force. The results in Table 7.1 show that the effect of increasing the
stiffness has reduced the levels of the moments at the top of the legs
irrespective of the possible resonance effects.
Case 7 was runs with a higher frequency of the applied load than for Case 6 but
with the same foundation stiffness. The result in Table 7.1 show that the levels
of moments induced have increased significantly and are close to those
calculated in Case 5. It is concluded that for the elastic foundation increasing
the stiffness of the foundation reduces the dynamic moments in the legs.
However, increasing the frequency of the applied loading can result in an
increase in the levels of moments for the same foundation stiffness. It is not
clear how the dynamics interacts the stiffness of the foundation, the natural
frequency of the model and the applied loading. It is recommended that further
analysis is carried out using the generic model to clarify this interaction.
Case 8 was run with a randomly applied loading. It is seen in Table 7.1 that in
comparison with Cases 6 and 7 the levels of the induced moments are
significantly reduced in comparison with the corresponding results obtained with
harmonically varying loading. It is tentatively concluded on the basis of the
available results that the use of harmonically varying loading to calculate the

36

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

n.

levels of induced moments in the legs will provide an over-estimate in

comparison with the values induced by random applied loading. It is
recommended that additional Cases are run to further clarify this phenomenon.
Table 7.1 shows that the levels of moments induced in the model with elastic
foundation properties (Cases 5-8) are generally significantly greater than for the
model with plastic non-linear foundation properties (Cases 9-18). It is
concluded that the calculations of the levels of moments using computational
models of jack-up structures with elastic foundation properties are likely to over
estimate the corresponding moment values for structures with plastic foundation
conditions.
Cases 9, 10 and 11 were run with the same plastic clay foundation properties
but with increasing frequencies of the applied loading. The detailed results in
Section 6 show that the degree of translational movement of the bases of the
legs varies from one Case to another. However, Table 7.1 shows that as far as
the induced moments are concerned there is no discernable relationship
between the range of induced moments and the change of frequency of the
applied loading. It is concluded that the complexity of the non-linear dynamics
masks any possible simple trend and that if the basis of a design were to be a
fully non-linear model of an actual jack-up the computational effort may be
prohibitive. However, the use of a generic model, calibrated by some analyses
on the actual jack-up structure and foundation under consideration. The
generic model could then be used to explore the sensitivity of the structural
response to variations in the foundation and loading conditions.
Case 12 was run with a modified clay yield surface compared to Case 11.
Table 7.1 shows that the range of the moment values in the windward legs
reduces from Case 11 to Case 12 by about 32% and by 40% for the leeward
legs. This compares to corresponding values from the quasi-static analysis,
Table 4.1, of 24% reduction for the windward legs and an increase of the
moments in the leeward legs by a factor of 2. It is concluded that the effects of
the dynamic loading and the progressive translation movements of the bases of
the legs prevents a simple comparison between the quasi-static analysis results
and the dynamic results.
The effect of increasing the properties of the non-linear clay yield surface is
shown in Case 13 in comparison with Case 12. It is evident from Table 7.1 that
this has virtually no effect on the levels of the ranges of moments induces in the
legs. This is contrary to the results obtained in Case 5 and 6 in which the
stiffness of the elastic foundation was increased and resulted in decreased
levels of moments. It is evident that it could be erroneous to extrapolate from
the results obtained from elastic foundations to those likely to occur with plastic
yielding foundations. Much of the difference between the elastic and plastic
foundations is due of course to the irreversible plastic movements of the bases
of the legs.
Case 14 was run to determine if the effect of resonance could be detected and
would have an effect on the levels of moments induced in the tops of the legs.
Resonance was possible in Case 14 because the frequency of the applied
loading was increased, compared to Case 13 and was very close to the natural
frequency of the model It is evident from the results shown in Table 7.1 that the
moments induced in the legs were increased by a factor of at least 2. It is
concluded that even for non-linear analysis the effects of resonance can be a
powerful factor in increasing the dynamic response of the structure to its
loading.
The effect of increasing the stiffness of the non-linear clay foundation was
considered in Case 15 compared to Case 11. It is evident from Table 7.1 that
the range of the moments in the windward legs was unchanged by the increase
in stiffness but the range of moments in the leeward leg was decreased by a

37

o.

p.

7.2.

factor of almost three.

It was concluded above for the conditions of elastic foundation that the
calculations using harmonically varying applied loading would overestimate the
levels of induced moments in comparison with the corresponding results using
a randomly varying loading. Case 16 was run to determine if this conclusion
held true for a model with a non-linear clay foundation. The comparison in
Table 7.1 is between Case 16 with the random loading and Case 15 with a
harmonically varying loading. It is evident from the results in the table that there
is some decrease in the levels of the moment range in the windward legs from
the harmonic to the random loading but the opposite is the case for the leeward
legs. It is concluded that further Cases should be run to obtain a more secure
foundation for assessing the degree of conservatism of the use of harmonically
varying loading in comparison with the random extreme forces that would be
experienced by jack-up structures in practice.
Cases 17 and 18 were run to investigate the possible effect of resonance in the
model with sand foundation. Cse 17 has ratio of the natural frequency of the
model to the frequency of the applied loading of 0.77 and the corresponding
value for Case 18 is 1.16. It is evident from Table 7.1 that the effect of the
more closely coincident frequencies in Case 18 is to increase the range of
moments in the windward legs by a factor of 1.6 and in the leeward legs by a
factor of 1.8. This reinforces the conclusion stated above that the effects of
resonance can be important aspect in the dynamic analysis of the jack-up
structural systems.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are some recommendation with regard to future work and development
of the form of numerical experiments presented here of a generic model of a jack-up
structure.
a.

The Cases in the present study were chosen to provide a wide range of non
linear dynamic effects. The model has shown that it is a efficient method of
generating insight to the effects of varying loading and foundation conditions. It
is recommended that the application of the numerical experimentation is
extended to other ranges of the loading and soils parameters and thus provide a
wider basis for considering the effects of the non-linearity in load response on the
safety of jack-up structures.

b.

The generic modelling is a quick and effective method for carrying out fully non
linear analysis of jack-up structures. However, before it can be completely
accepted as capable of providing accurate and reliable information of the
response of actual jack-up structures is should be calibrated against results from
the corresponding fully non-linear analysis of an example jack-up structure. It is
recommended that the procedure for carrying out the fully non-linear dynamic
analysis of the example jack-up structure is guided by prior numerical runs on the
generic model.

c. The calculation of environmental forces applied to actual jack-up structures

usually does not account for the movement of the structure relative to the fluid. It
is recommended that the effect of the possible effect of this relative movement is
investigated using the approach presented here of generic modelling.
d. The loading applied in the numerical experiments presented here does not
include the effect of loss of air gap. It is recommended that the effect of this
phenomenon is explored using the numerical experimentation method. It would
be a fairly simple matter to incorporate the loading caused by wave impact on the

38

deck into a random pattern of loading and to evaluate the response of the
structure.

39

8.

REFERENCES

1. Review of Jack-up System Measures, Bomel Group

September 2000.

HSE Task No B/0078,

2. SNAME
3. Abaqus/Standard users Manual, Version 6.2 section 18.5.1

40

APPENDIX FIGURES

41

Figure 5.1 Finite element model

Figure 5.2 View of deformed position of structural model

42

Figure 5.3 Typical Mises stress contour plot for case su=3e4,
b=7.97,clay model, f=0.137Hz.

Figure 5.4 Mises contour plot for case su=3e4,b=7.97,clay model, f=0.137Hz
(zoom view at top of legs)

43

0.99998

0.5

Fi

0.5

- 0.99998

10

15

20

25

ti

Figure 5.5 Normalized dynamic load of period of 1 sec

Figure 5.6 Case 1 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

44

30

30

Figure 5.7 Case1 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

Figure 5.8 Case 1 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

45

Figure 5.9 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

Figure 5.10 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

46

Figure 5.11 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

Figure 5.12 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

47

Figure 5.13 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

Figure 5.14 Case 2 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec, load=0.7e5N

48

Figure 5.15 Case 3 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec

Figure 5.16 Case 3 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec

49

Figure 5.17 Case 3 Pin ended model, f=0.67Hz, T=1.4 sec

Figure 5.18 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

50

Figure 5.19 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

Figure 5.20 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

51

Figure 5.21 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

Figure 5.22 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

52

Figure 5.23 Case 4 Clay plastic model, f=0.688Hz,T=1.4 sec

53

Figure 6.1 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

Figure 6.2 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

54

Figure 6.3 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

Figure 6.4 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

55

Figure 6.5 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

Figure 6.6 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

56

Figure 6.7 Case 5 (T=2sec, f=0.137, elastic)

57

Figure 6.8 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.9 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

58

Figure 6.10 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.11 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

59

Figure 6.12 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.13 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

60

Figure 6.14 Case 6 (T=2sec, f=0.387, elastic)

61

Figure 6.15 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.16 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

62

Figure 6.17 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.18 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

63

Figure 6.19 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.20 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

64

Figure 6.21 Case 7 (T=3sec, f=0.387, elastic)

65

Figure 6.22 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.23 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.387, elastic)

66

Figure 6.24 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.25 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.387, elastic)

67

Figure 6.26 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.387, elastic)

Figure 6.27 Case 8 (T=random, f=0.38721,elastic)

68

Figure 6.28 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.29 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

69

Figure 6.30 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.31 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

70

Figure 6.32 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.33 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

71

Figure 6.34 Case 9 (T = 1 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

72

Figure 6.35 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

Figure 6.36 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

73

Figure 6.37 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

Figure 6.38 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

74

Figure 6.39 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

Figure 6.40 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

75

Figure 6.41 Case 10 (T = 1.5 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.30e6)

76

Figure 6.42 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.43 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

77

Figure 6.44 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.45 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

78

Figure 6.46 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

Figure 6.47 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

79

Figure 6.48 Case 11 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 7e4, b = 9.3e6)

80

Figure 6.49 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.50 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

81

Figure 6.51 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.52 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

82

Figure 6.53 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.54 Case 12 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.137, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

83

Figure 6.55 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

Figure 6.56 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

84

Figure 6.57 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

Figure 6.58 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

85

Figure 6.59 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

Figure 6.60 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

86

Figure 6.61 Case 13 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su=3e4, b=7.97e6)

87

Figure 6.62 Case 14 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.63 Case 10 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

88

Figure 6.64 Case 14 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.65 Case 14 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

89

Figure 6.66 Case 14 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

Figure 6.67 Case 14 (T= 3 sec, f = 0.387, su = 3e4, b = 7.97e6)

90

Figure 6.68 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.69 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

91

Figure 6.70 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.71 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

92

Figure 6.72 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.73 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

93

Figure 6.74 Case 15 (T= 2 sec, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

94

Figure 6.75 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.76 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

95

Figure 6.77 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.78 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

96

Figure 6.79 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

Figure 6.80 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

97

Figure 6.81 Case 16 (T = random, f = 0.387, su = 7e4, b = 9.30 e6)

98

Figure 6.82 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.83 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

99

Figure 6.84 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.85 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

100

Figure 6.86 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.87 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

101

Figure 6.88 Case 17 (T = 2 sec, f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

102

Figure 6.89 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.90 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

103

Figure 6.91 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.92 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

104

Figure 6.93 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

Figure 6.94 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model)

105

Figure 6.95 Case 18 (T = 3 sec (resonance), f = 0.387, L1 = 1, L2 = 0.5, sand model

106

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C30 1/98
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C0.06
03/04

ISBN 0-7176-2795-0

RR 177

25.00

9 78071 7 62795 0