The maximum design signifcant wave heights and peak periods

specifed by the rig owner for operating and survival conditions are
listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. User Specifed Wave Heights and Periods.
Load Condition Description of
Waves
H
s
!" T
p
s"
Survival 100!ear "urricane 1# 1$
%ormal &perating 10!ear storm '.( 1).'
H#drod#na!ic load calc$lation
"ydrodynamic loads are generated by water moving past the platform leg.
*oads are made up of drag and inertial components +relative velocity and
acceleration of the water, and they act over the exposed height of the
platform leg.
%eg$lar &ave anal#sis
-ave theories yield the information on wave motion like water particles
kinematics and wave speed. using the input information of wave height. its
period and depth of water at the site.
/urrently there are a number of wave theories that are applied in the
analysis of 0ackup platforms. 1n most cases the deterministic computations
are performed using Stokes ffth order or 2ean Stream function theories. 1n
this analysis. the Stokes ffth order wave theory is applied.
C$rrent
The current profle may be expressed as a series of velocities at certain
stations from seabed to water surface. 3 site specifc study will normally be
re4uired to defne the current velocity components. -hen there is no site
specifc data available. assumptions should be made.
5igure 3.1 Suggested current profle
The 'orison(s e)$ation
3 structural member is considered to be of 6small diameter7 when its
diameter is less that about 0.1$ times the wave length8 for example.
members of 9acket structures and piled 0etties.
*ig$re 3+,- Wave i!pact
1n general. wave forces on o:shore structures are calculated in three
di:erent ways based on the type and si;e of the structure<
2i:raction theory< inertia force predominates. on large structures
5roude=rylov theory< inertia force predominates. on small structures
>orison e4uation< drag force is signifcant. on small structures
-hen member diameter is small incident waves do not get much scattered
by the obstruction and in that case the e4uation given by >orison et al.
+1($0, becomes applicable.
>orison et al. +1($0,7s e4uation<
1t states that the total force. inline with the wave direction can be obtained
by addition of the drag force and the inertia force. i. e..
where.
? @mass density of fluid
u @ Aow velocity is coeBcient of drag. 1ts value depends on body shape.
roughness. Aow
viscosity and several other parameters.
/
2
@/oeBcient of 1nertia. 1t depends on shape of the body. its surface
roughness and other parameters. @ inline +hori;ontal, force per meter
length at member axis at given time at given location.
%ote that . "ence velocity and acceleration are out of
phase by (0 and are not maximum at the same time.
Leg H#drod#na!ic 'odel
.eneral
The hydrodynamic modeling of the leg of a 0ackup may be carried out by
utili;ing either CdetailedC or Ce4uivalentC techni4ues. 1n both cases the
geometric orientation of the elements are accounted for. The hydrodynamic
properties are then found as described below<
/0)$ivalent 'odel/
The hydrodynamic model of a bay is comprised of 6e4uivalentC number of
one meter diameter columns located at the geometric center of the actual
leg.
/alculations have shown for smaller diameter tubular in higher waves. the
wave force mainly consists of the drag contribution. 1n other words. the
inertia force for these tubular is much smaller than the drag force.
>orison7s e4uation shows that the drag term is linear with respect to the
diameter of a tubular. Thus it is a fair approximation to state that the wave
forces on a tubular are proportional to the exposed area of the tubular.
To take into consideration of the direction of the members when calculating
the total e:ective area of the leg. a factor is applied. whereis the
angle between the member7s axis and the wave and current direction.
"ence. for a member parallel with the wave and current. the angle is 0
degree. and for a member perpendicular to the wave and current. the angle
is (0 degree.
The term can be explained as follows<
+a,The normal wave particle velocity is sin times the actual wave
particle velocity.
+b,The drag force is proportional to the s4uare of the normal wave
particle velocity.
+c, The resultant hori;ontal force is the pro0ection of the total drag force
which means another factor sin.
Similarly. the inertia term should include a term to allow for obli4ue
angles of attack. 1n line with the earlier force estimation. this inertia term is
further disregarded.
The leg area is to be compared with the area of the standard 1.0 m
diameter column and the ratio between the two is to be used as the
multiplication factor.
H#drod#na!ic Coe1cients for Leg 'e!bers
Decommended values for hydrodynamic coeBcients for tubular +E1.$m
diameter, are
given in Table ).3.
Table ).3< Fase hydrodynamic coeBcients for tubulars
%ote< The smooth values will normally apply above >-* G Hm and the
rough values below >-* G Hm. 1f the 0ackup has operated in deeper water
and the fouled legs are not cleaned the surface should be taken as rough for
wave loads above >-* G Hm.
'arine .ro&th
-hen applicable. marine growth is to be included in the hydrodynamic
model by adding the appropriate marine growth thickness. to. on the
boundary of each individual member below >-* G Hm. for a tubular 2i@
2
original
G Htm. Site specifc data for marine growth is preferred. 1f such data
are not available all members below >-* G Hm shall be considered to have
a marine growth thickness t
m
@ 1H.$ mm+i.e. total of H$ mm across the
diameter of a tubular member,. >arine growth on the teeth of elevating
racks and protruding guided surfaces of chords may normally be ignored.
H#drod#na!ic Coe1cients for Split T$be Chords
5or nontubular geometries +e.g. leg chords, the appropriate hydrodynamic
coeBcients may. in lieu of more detailed information. be taken in
accordance with 5igures ).) and corresponding formulas. as appropriate.
5igure ).)< Split tube chord and typical values for /
2i
The drag coeBcients for 0Iare dominated by the tubular part and no
particular e:ect of the rack on the drag coeBcient is seen from the tests.
That is. for typical dimensions of the tubular diameter and rack plate
thickness t. 2
i
Jt KK 1.0. tests show values of about /
2
L0.'$. This indicates
that the drag coeBcients chosen for the tubular are also valid for the split
tube chord for the 0I direction. 1n order to be consistent with the roughness
dependence of the drag coeBcient for tubular. the drag coeBcient in the
marine growth region is increased due to roughness to /
2rough
@ 1.0 for M@
0I.
5or the (0Idirection the drag coeBcient should be similar to that of a Aat
plate for large -J2i ratios. /
2plate
@ H.0. "owever. test results seem to
indicate that the /
2
values for this direction referring to the mean rack width
-. are. on average. about 1.#. The suggested drag coeBcient is therefore
set to be 1.# for small -J2
i
ratios. increasing to H.0 for large -J2
i
ratios. The
interpolation between these two numbers is based on engineering
0udgment.
5or the interpolation between the directions 0Iand (0I a number of
formulations are available. but since there were a number of test results
available. a best ft of a new formulation was decided.
5or a split tube chord as shown in 5igure ).). the drag coeBcient /
2i
related
to the reference dimension 2i@ 2GHtm. the diameter of the tubular
including marine growth. may be taken as<
where8
M @ 3ngle in degree
/
20
@ is the drag coefficient for the chord at M@ 0Iand is to be taken as that
of a tubular with appropriate roughness. i.e. /
20
@ 0.'$ above >-* G H.0m
and /
20
@ 1.0. below >-*GH.0m. Nossible dependence on =/ and De
numbers as for a tubular.
/
21
@ The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack +M@ (0I,. related to
the pro0ected diameter +the rack width -,. /
21
is given by
The inertia coeBcient /
>i
@ H.0. related to the e4uivalent volume. may be
applied for all heading angles and any roughness.
Calc$lation
The following parameters and assumptions are adopted for the calculation
of total hori;ontal force and overturning moment on the leg.
-ave
-ave theory< Stokes ffth order wave theory
-ave height< "@1# m8
-ave period< T@1$ s8
-ater 2epth< d@1H1.( m8
/urrent
1.0 mJs. assuming uniformly distributed from >-* to $ meter
below >-*
0 mJs. $ meter below >-* to the seabed
-ave and current direction
1. 3ssuming in line with each other to be conservative.
H. 0 degree and )$ degree of environmental heading relative to the leg
was assumed respectively.
>arine growth
3ssuming 1H.$ mm covering the entire leg length
/hords
>ean rack width< -@0.#(3)m8
/haracteristic length< 2@0.#1H)m8
"ydrodynamic coeBcients for bracing members
The smooth values apply above >-* G Hm and the rough values below
>-* G Hm.
"ydrodynamic coeBcients for chords in leg
3t 0 degree environmental heading. all ) racks will be at rack angle )$
degrees8 at )$ degree environmental heading. H racks will be at rack angle
0 degree and the other H will be at (0 degrees. The drag coeBcients and
inertia coeBcients for chords at di:erent rack angles are calculated and
tabulated below.
>ultiplication factors
Fased on all the member si;es and directions. multiplication factors are
calculated for bracing members and chords members for two environmental
heading respectively. 5or chords members. the hydrodynamic force also
depends on rack angles. hence multiplication factors for di:erent set of
chords with di:erent rack angles are calculated separately. The results are
illustrated in the table below.
"ydrodynamic force on unit diameter columns
Fased on the assumptions made above. hydrodynamic forces under
di:erent hydrodynamic coeBcient assumptions for unit diameter columns
are summari;ed in the table below.
The total base shear and overturning moment for 1 meter diameter columns
for the ) cases above are obtained by S3/S software and illustrated in the
table below
"ydrodynamic force on entire leg
1n combination of multiplication factors and forces on unit diameter
columns. total force on the entire leg for 0 degree and )$ degree
environmental headings are obtained.
Total base shear with 0 degree environmental heading: 76 kN
Total overturning moment with 0 degree environmental heading: 461912.8 kN.m
Total base shear with 4 degree environmental heading: 108.4 kN
Total overturning moment with 4 degree environmental heading: !91!4!.8! kN.m